Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 226665
Merge Review: yp-tools
Last modified: 2009-12-10 10:18:12 EST
Fedora Merge Review: yp-tools
Initial Owner: firstname.lastname@example.org
formal review of yp-tools-2.9-8.fc12 is here, see the notes below:
YES source files match upstream:
YES package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
YES specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
YES dist tag is present.
YES build root is correct.
YES license field matches the actual license.
YES license is open source-compatible.
YES License text included in package.
NO latest version is being packaged.
claims current version is yp-tools-2.10
N/A BuildRequires are proper.
YES compiler flags are appropriate.
YES %clean is present.
YES package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64).
YES debuginfo package looks complete.
NO rpmlint is silent.
yp-tools.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot NIS (or YP) client programs.
yp-tools.src:11: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes yppasswd
yp-tools.src:11: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes yp-clients
yp-tools.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot NIS (or YP) client programs.
yp-tools.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided yppasswd
yp-tools.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided yp-clients
YES final provides and requires look sane.
N/A %check is present and all tests pass.
YES no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
YES owns the directories it creates.
YES doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
YES no duplicates in %files.
YES file permissions are appropriate.
YES no scriptlets present.
YES code, not content.
YES documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
YES %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
YES no headers.
YES no pkgconfig files.
YES no libtool .la droppings.
YES not a GUI app.
I think these above mentioned rpmlint warnings may be omitted.
yp-tools-2.9-8.fc12 is all right
(I hope version 2.10 will be included in next release)
so I'm giving APPROVED.
The rpmlint warnings were fixed.
The package was updated to the newest version.
Thank you, Jiri, for the review.