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. |