[Bug 524437] Review Request: nss_updatedb - Maintains a local cache of network directory user and group information
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Sep 22 22:53:50 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=524437
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> 2009-09-22 18:53:47 EDT ---
Builds fine and rpmlint is silent.
You have "License: GPLv2" but nowhere do I see a version of the GPL specified.
According to the GPL text itself (section 9) we can choose any version we like.
This means that the license is GPL+. Or do you see any language in the code
or documentation which specifies "version 2 only"?
BTW, if you're going to require a recent rpm by leaving out BuildRoot:, you
might as well drop the rpm -rf at the start of %install.
* source files match upstream. sha256sum:
a0f95ec12eb2a986774bf7f6738925ccb9ee588ae99d1fa7a771bd1d07676ab1
nss_updatedb.tgz
* 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.
X license field does not seem to match 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 is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
nss_updatedb = 10-1.fc12
nss_updatedb(x86-64) = 10-1.fc12
=
libdb-4.7.so()(64bit)
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directory it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
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