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 221010
Summary: | Review Request: librfid - Free Software RFID library | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | kushaldas@gmail.com <mail> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Brian Pepple <bdpepple> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-12-31 08:21:10 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
kushaldas@gmail.com
2006-12-30 11:25:49 UTC
MD5Sum: 695e7f30f570a08407e42ed278ca2fe3 librfid-0.1.0.tar.bz2 Good: * Source URL is canonical. * License field in spec, match tarball license. * Group Tag is from the official list * Buildroot has all required elements * All paths begin with macros. * All necessary BuildRequires listed. * Files have appropriate permissions and owners. * Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines. * rpmlint produces no errors. * Package builds in Mock fine. * Package install and uninstalls cleanly on FC6. Minor: * I really don't think you need to add the same docs that are in the main package to the devel package. This isn't a blocker, but I would drop them. +1 APPROVED One thing to consider: The %{_bindir}/send_script in the main package has a very generic file name and bears the risk of creating a conflict with other packages. The upstream authors are advised to choose a more unique file name. (In reply to comment #1) > Minor: > * I really don't think you need to add the same docs that are in the main > package to the devel package. This isn't a blocker, but I would drop them. > > +1 APPROVED Done :) (In reply to comment #2) > One thing to consider: > > The %{_bindir}/send_script in the main package has a very generic > file name and bears the risk of creating a conflict with other > packages. The upstream authors are advised to choose a more unique > file name. > Will inform the upstream authors. (I'm the upstream author): The send_script program has been renamed into librfid_send_script in our SVN tree. The next release of the library will reflact that change. Thanks for letting us know. |