[Bug 488858] Review Request: davfs2 - A filesystem driver for WebDAV
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Mar 9 04:00:37 UTC 2009
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=488858
Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> 2009-03-09 00:00:35 EDT ---
Indeed, the only rpmlint complaints are those you mention, and they're all OK.
I tried to test this but without a server to connect to there's not all that
much you can do.
This package leaves /etc/davfs2 and /etc/davfs2/certs unowned. A couple of
extra %dir statements should fix this up. Really that's the only I see that
needs fixing, so I'll go ahead and approve this and you can fix it up when you
import.
* source files match upstream. sha256sum:
bb71b46dfd6b24885c263243cdf15de57d4798b6cee0b479324ea387f3694775
davfs2-1.3.3.tar.gz
* 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.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
config(davfs2) = 1.3.3-1.fc11
davfs2 = 1.3.3-1.fc11
davfs2(x86-64) = 1.3.3-1.fc11
=
/bin/sh
config(davfs2) = 1.3.3-1.fc11
libneon.so.27()(64bit)
shadow-utils
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
X owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* scriptlets are OK (user/group creation).
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.
APPROVED, just fix up the directory ownership issues.
The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list