Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 165892
Summary: | Review Request: xsupplicant | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | José Matos <jamatos> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | David Lawrence <dkl> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | http://www.open1x.org/ | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-08-29 09:01:21 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 |
Description
Tom "spot" Callaway
2005-08-13 17:45:15 UTC
I have followed the link to sourceforge and I only find the the 1.2 version. If you redo the package for 1.2 I will review the package. FWIW, the spec file looks perfect. :-) Sneaky, sneaky. They haven't updated their website yet. :) New SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/xsupplicant-1.2-1.src.rpm New SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/xsupplicant.spec + package builds in mock for x86_64 + rpmlint check rpmlint xsupplicant-1.2-1.fc4.x86_64.rpm E: xsupplicant non-readable /etc/xsupplicant.conf 0600 (clearly here rpmlint is wrong, xsupplicant configuration should not be public) + package follows name convention and the spec file is correctly named + no locales, libraries, subpackages, pkgconfigs etc. to worry about + not relocatable + no directory ownership or permissions issues + no duplicate files + the license is correct (GPL) and it ships in the package + the spec file is in English and it is readable + the source file is the same as upstream (sha1sum agrees) + build requires are correct (*) So the package is APPROVED. (*) Is the any special reason to require byacc and not bison? I am just curious. :-) No reason. In fact, I'll change it to bison before I commit. Reopening bug to fix assignee. Assignee fixed, closing again. |