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 198691
Summary: | Review Request: steghide - A Steganography Program | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jochen Schmitt <jochen> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Chris Weyl <cweyl> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | panemade |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-07-24 15:13:10 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
Jochen Schmitt
2006-07-12 20:15:31 UTC
== Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored == Mock build for development i386 is sucessfull with warnings CvrStgObject.h:40: warning: 'class CvrStgObject' has virtual functions but non-virtual destructor MCryptPPTest.cc: In member function 'bool MCryptPPTest::genericTestDecryption()': MCryptPPTest.cc:47: warning: control reaches end of non-void function MCryptPPTest.cc: In member function 'bool MCryptPPTest::genericTestEncryption()': MCryptPPTest.cc:43: warning: control reaches end of non-void function * MUST Items: - rpmlint shows no error. - dist tag is present. - The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. - The spec file name matching the base package steghide, in the format steghide.spec. - This package meets the Packaging Guidelines. - The spec file for the package MUST be legible. - The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license GPL. - This package includes License file COPYING. - This source package includes the text of the license in its own file,and that file, containing the text of the license for the package is included in %doc. - The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct (5be490e24807d921045780fd8cc446b3) - This package successfully compiled and built into binary rpms for i386 architecture. - This package did not containd any ExcludeArch. - This package handled locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Not used %{_datadir}/locale/*. - This package owns all directories that it creates. - This package did not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. - This package have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. - This package used macros. - Document files are included like README. - Package did NOT contained any .la libtool archives. Also, * Source URL is present and working. * BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * BuildRequires is correct * Package is working fine on i386. Bug appears to have been closed by mistake Parag: Good first pass at a review. Note that compiler warnings like that are generally disregarded for the purposes of review, unless it's something _serious_ or correctable on our end. But, that being said, when in doubt, note it. The MUSTs are good places to start for reviews, as you've discovered... I encourage you to look at the other templates people are using (or patently stealing, like me <grin>). Keep it up, you're improving each time around. Jochen: I'd recommend addressing the rpmlint warning below as it's a lot of visual spam otherwise, but it's not a blocker. + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license field matches the actual license. + license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. + source files match upstream: 5be490e24807d921045780fd8cc446b3 steghide-0.5.1.tar.gz 5be490e24807d921045780fd8cc446b3 steghide-0.5.1.tar.gz.srpm + latest version is being packaged. + BuildRequires are proper. + package builds in mock (5+devel/x86_64). + rpmlint is silent on binary package O rpmlint issues warming on source package (ignorable) W: steghide setup-not-quiet + final provides and requires are sane: steghide-0.5.1-1.fc5.x86_64.rpm == provides steghide = 0.5.1-1.fc5 == requires libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libjpeg.so.62()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libmcrypt.so.4()(64bit) libmhash.so.2()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) + no shared libraries are present. + package is not relocatable. + owns the directories it creates. + doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + %clean is present. + %check is present and all tests pass: + no scriptlets present. + code, not content. + documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. + %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. + no headers. + no pkgconfig files. + no libtool .la droppings. + not a GUI app. + not a web app. APPROVED |