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=488618 Krishna Ganugapati <krishnag@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(krishnag@likewise | |.com) | --- Comment #5 from Krishna Ganugapati <krishnag@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-13 16:40:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > You need to provide a direct link to both the srpm and the spec file. > Currently, one have to go to the url then look for the srpm. The spec file is > not available at all and one need to download the 47 MB srpm to look at the > spec. > Preliminary comments : > - License tag is not valid. > - Release is not using the disttag. > - BuildRoot is not valid. > - Source0 and Source999 need to be a full URL. > - Spec file uses both spaces and tabs for indenting. > - The first half of the following line in %%build section is not needed : > [ "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" != "/" ] && rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > - Same as above for %%clean section. > - File attributes are not set. Add the following line at the top of all the > packages sections : > %defattr (-,root,root-) > - %{_libdir}/likewise is not owned by any of the packages. > - Config files are not marked as such use %config and %config(noreplace) where > appropriate. > - %{_sysconfdir}/likewise is not owned. > - {_bindir}/demo is not owned. > - {_prefix}/share should be {_datadir}. > - /var should be {_localstatedir} > - %{_prefix}/bin should be %{_bindir}. > - %{_prefix}/data is not a standard dir and should not be created at all. > - No version-release for the changelog entries. > - No documentation included. > - No license file included. > - Services are provided but initscripts is not in the Requires: list nor are > the proper %%pre, %preun, etc... scriptlet used. > - You can use sed -i rather than sed then move, this will make the spec easier > to read. > - The build should probably not temper with the RPM_OPT_FLAGS and CFLAGS. > - The whole %%build and %%install sctions look fishy. > - Doesn't build in mock, needs at least to BuildRequires: openldap-devel, > krb5-devel but even with that, build still fails. > The list above is nowhere near complete, this package needs a lot of work. > Please carefully read the packaging guidelines to fix all of the above. You > should also run rpmlint on all the rpms and srpm. > Also, not directly related to the review, one need to register to receive a > link to the download page > (http://www.likewise.com/community/index.php/download/). It seems there's no > tarball to download but rather a lot of different tarballs. This is > confusing... Thank you! We're working on this. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review