[Bug 501017] Review Request: libtnc - Library implementation of the Trusted Network Connect (TNC) specification

[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=501017


Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




--- Comment #1 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com>  2009-09-01 16:18:09 EDT ---
? rpmlint output

rpmlint libtnc.spec libtnc-1.19-1.fc11.src.rpm libtnc-1.19-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm
libtnc-devel-1.19-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm libtnc-debuginfo-1.19-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm
libtnc.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libosc_imv.so.0.0.0
exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license
? should package the latest version
  there's a version 1.22 out on the site

+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
  4150bb183a9b6aa0af0f48359b024912  libtnc-1.19.tar.gz
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
  tested using koji scratch build
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
+ binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun+
does not use Prefix: /usr
n/a package owns all directories it creates
n/a no duplicate files in %files
? Package perserves timestamps on install
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
+ header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
+ libfoo.so must go in -devel
+ devel must require the fully versioned base
+ packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8

Optional:

+ if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock/koji
+ the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
n/a review should test the package functions as described
+ scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin

Issues:
- rpmlint output - I don't believe that its a problem.
- there's a newer version 1.22 upstream
- not sure if the lovely autotools preserves timestamps. Possibly use:
  make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install INSTALL='install -p'
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps

I don't see any of the above issues as blockers. APPROVED!

-- 
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.