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: libatasmart - ATA S.M.A.R.T. Disk Health Monitoring 
Library


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456723


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-07-26 11:51 EST -------
[-]     source files match upstream:
                it doesn't fbffdc4551dd63368babf6fdd659a4bef8e0e647 vs
23116bb3a88fb9ccfbe229ac5a209beb8c80535f
                please package the upstream tarball (When doing changes 
upstream please bump
the release)
[+]     package meets naming and versioning 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:
                The spec says "License: LGPLv2" while the source files say "or 
(at your
option) any later version."
                Please change to LGPLv2+
[+]     license is open source-compatible.
[+]     license text included in package.
[?]     latest version is being packaged:
                The version number is the lastest but the checksums do not 
match (see first
comment)
[+]     BuildRequires are proper.
[+]     compiler flags are appropriate.
[+]     %clean is present.
[+]     package builds in koji:
        http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=740525
[+]     package installs properly.
[+]     debuginfo package looks complete.
[+]     rpmlint output:
        Shows one waring "libatasmart-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation" can be 
safly
ignored.
[+]     ldconfig is used in %post and %postun
[+]     no duplicates in %files.
[+]     file permissions are appropriate.
[+]     code, not content.
[+]     documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
[+]     %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

------
Package looks good to me please fix the two issues noted and I will approve it.
* package correct upstream tarball
* fix license tag



-- 
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, or are watching someone who is.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

Reply via email to