Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: abook - Text-based addressbook program for mutt


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177104


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-08-12 20:29 EST -------
I'll go ahead and take a look at this.

It builds fine in mock; rpmlint on the SRPM has this to say:

W: abook macro-in-%changelog rlz1
W: abook macro-in-%changelog rlz1
W: abook macro-in-%changelog rlz1
W: abook macro-in-%changelog rlz1
W: abook macro-in-%changelog rlz1
  You just need to double some percent signs.

E: abook no-cleaning-of-buildroot
   You should clean out $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at the beginning of %install.

rpmlint on the built RPM is quiet.

* source files match upstream:
   87d25df96864a7c507a4965e6d1da49d  abook-0.5.6.tar.gz
* 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.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint has valid complaints
* final provides and requires are sane:
   abook = 0.5.6-1.fc6
  =
   libncursesw.so.5()(64bit)
   libreadline.so.5()(64bit)
   lynx
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream
* 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.
* 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.
* locale files present; fing_lang used appropriately.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

Reply via email to