[Bug 488618] Review Request: Likewise Open - Likewise Active Directory Authentication Services

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]