Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: libdigidoc - Library for handling digitally signed documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640550
Summary: Review Request: libdigidoc - Library for handling digitally signed documents Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: kalev@smartlink.ee QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/libdigidoc.spec SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/libdigidoc-2.7.0-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: libDigiDoc is a library implementing a subset of the XAdES digital signature standard on top of Estonian specific .ddoc container format. It allows to create, sign, verify, and modify digidoc XML containers.
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2517283
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640550
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |lemenkov@gmail.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |lemenkov@gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2010-10-06 12:09:27 EDT --- I'll review it
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640550
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2010-10-06 14:09:39 EDT --- REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint almost is silent (the following messages should be safely ignored):
Sulaco ~: rpmlint ~/Desktop/libdigidoc-* libdigidoc.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ddoc -> doc, d doc, Doctor libdigidoc.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US digidoc -> digitoxin, digital, digitate libdigidoc.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cdigidoc libdigidoc-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Sulaco ~:
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (LGPLv2 or higher). + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum libdigidoc-2.7.0.tar.bz2* 0a1ae1f1ef88e4fc26a83529a7d4ea5b9eda5df137fd6ff72e6da63308926aff libdigidoc-2.7.0.tar.bz2 0a1ae1f1ef88e4fc26a83529a7d4ea5b9eda5df137fd6ff72e6da63308926aff libdigidoc-2.7.0.tar.bz2.1 Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji link above. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. + The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files are stored in a -devel package. 0 No static libraries. + The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package (necessary runtime requirement added automatically - it's ok, but, please, keep in mind that this could be a problem on systems with old rpm). + The library file(s) that ends in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a -devel package. + The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
Ok, I didn't find any issues so this package is
APPROVED.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640550
Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #3 from Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee 2010-10-06 14:56:14 EDT --- Thanks a lot for the very quick review!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libdigidoc Short Description: Library for handling digitally signed documents Owners: kalev anttix tuju Branches: f12 f13 f14 InitialCC:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640550
--- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2010-10-06 19:30:34 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640550
Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2010-10-07 03:32:37
--- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee 2010-10-07 03:32:37 EDT --- Builds done, closing the ticket. Thanks!
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640550
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-10-07 03:36:18 EDT --- libdigidoc-2.7.0-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libdigidoc-2.7.0-1.fc13
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640550
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-10-07 03:36:25 EDT --- libdigidoc-2.7.0-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libdigidoc-2.7.0-1.fc14
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640550
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-10-07 03:36:31 EDT --- libdigidoc-2.7.0-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libdigidoc-2.7.0-1.fc12
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640550
Kalev Lember kalev@smartlink.ee changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |641748
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640550
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-10-14 02:31:39 EDT --- libdigidoc-2.7.0-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640550
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-10-15 08:37:53 EDT --- libdigidoc-2.7.0-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640550
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-10-17 00:52:09 EDT --- libdigidoc-2.7.0-1.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org