Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ntop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197198 kevin@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |kevin@xxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2006-08-27 19:12 EST ------- OK - Package name OK - Spec file matches base package name. 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. See below - Sources match upstream md5sum: cd29a876b34a7dd76555e9acd8f160bb ntop-3.2.tgz cd29a876b34a7dd76555e9acd8f160bb ntop-3.2.tgz.1 OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. See below - BuildRequires correct OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. See below - No rpmlint output. SHOULD Items: OK - Should include License or ask upstream to include it. - Should build in mock. See below - Should have sane scriptlets. Issues: 1. Oddly the web site ( http://www.ntop.org/ ) doesn't mention the sourceforge src download. It points only to their CVS repository for getting the source. Is the sourceforge download official for upstream? Perhaps just a bug in their download page on the web site? They do mention in the CVS FAQ file: http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/n/nt/ntop/ 2. Doesn't build under mock/devel. The libpcap BuildRequires should be libpcap-devel ? (Note that this changed between fc5 and devel) 3. Why the post and postun calls to ldconfig? If ntop does dlopen directly on the .so files, there should be no need to call ldconfig. Also, if that is the case perhaps the .so files shouldn't be polluting libdir? I removed the non versioned files and ntop starts fine, so I think we can remove: /usr/lib/libntop.so /usr/lib/libmyrrd.so /usr/lib/libntopreport.so 4. rpmlint says: E: ntop non-standard-uid /var/ntop ntop E: ntop non-standard-dir-perm /var/ntop 0775 Those can be ignored. W: ntop devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libntop.so W: ntop devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libmyrrd.so W: ntop devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libntopreport.so I think those can be removed. W: ntop mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs Cosmetic, but would be nice to fix up. E: ntop-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/ntop-3.2/fcUtils.c E: ntop-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/ntop-3.2/globals- structtypes.h Permissions on those files should be 644? 5. There is currently nothing in the plugins directory. Do you intend to ship no plugins at all? 6. You need to run ntop "manually" the first time to set the password. Would there be some way to detect this in the init script and print a warning and tell the user exactly what they need to run? 7. Starting up after setting the password results in: /sbin/service ntop start Starting ntop daemon: Processing file /etc/ntop.conf for parameters... Sun Aug 27 16:54:45 2006 NOTE: Interface merge enabled by default Sun Aug 27 16:54:45 2006 Initializing gdbm databases NOTE: --use-syslog, no facility specified, using default value. Did you forget the =? [ OK ] Can that be redirected to the log or /dev/null? init scripts shouldn't print verbose information to the starting console. 8. Instead of removing the .a files you could just pass '--disable-static' to configure. Possibly also enable: --enable-snmp ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review