[Bug 502990] Review Request: erlang-eradius - RADIUS authentication/accounting for erlang apps

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=502990


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-06-03 22:39:27 EDT ---
This builds OK.  rpmlint says:
  erlang-eradius.x86_64: E: no-binary
  erlang-eradius.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
These are bogus.

  erlang-eradius.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm 
   /usr/share/doc/erlang-eradius-0/MIT_LICENSE
There's no reason for the license file to be executable.  You should really run
rpmlint over your packages and at least fix the trivial stuff.

As this is a snapshot, you must include the snapshot date (20070627) in your
release.  See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages for
more information.

* source files match upstream (checked manually).
X package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
X rpmlint has a valid complaint.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   erlang-eradius = 0-0.2.fc11
   erlang-eradius(x86-64) = 0-0.2.fc11
  =
   erlang

* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
X file permissions on MIT_LICENSE are odd.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.