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=225906 --- Comment #11 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-22 13:52:14 EDT --- I went ahead and ran through my checklist again: OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. See below - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL+) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: a138d1c2e74321e0e4e228a9fb301c9a iptables-1.4.2.tar.bz2 a138d1c2e74321e0e4e228a9fb301c9a iptables-1.4.2.tar.bz2.orig OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - .la files are removed. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions) See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have sane scriptlets. OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin See below - check for outstanding bugs on package (merge reviews/rename/re-reviews). Issues: 1. MINOR: Can you stick with one of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} ? 2. rpmlint says: iptables.src: W: strange-permission iptables.init 0755 iptables.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/sysconfig/iptables-config 0600 iptables.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/iptables iptables.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/iptables iptables-ipv6.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/sysconfig/ip6tables-config 0600 iptables-ipv6.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/ip6tables iptables-ipv6.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/ip6tables iptables-ipv6.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name ip6tables All those can be ignored. 3. You might consider using one of the standard ways to remove rpath: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines (ie, sed instead of perl) 4. There are a few packaging related bugs that would be nice to fix up: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462207 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432617 The consistent use of macros is a MUST, so if you can fix that up I can approve this review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review