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=226407 --- Comment #27 from Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-06-03 06:07:26 EDT --- Time to get this review moving again. Here's a refresher of where we stand: Current rpmlint state --------------------- Source Package: W: unversioned-explicit-provides MTA W: unversioned-explicit-provides smtpdaemon W: unversioned-explicit-provides server(smtp) => All Ok - these are valid virtual provides for which a version would be inappropriate W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{_sbindir}/sendmail W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{_bindir}/mailq W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{_bindir}/newaliases W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{_bindir}/rmail W: unversioned-explicit-provides /usr/lib/sendmail W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{_sysconfdir}/pam.d/smtp W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{_mandir}/man1/mailq.1.gz W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{_mandir}/man1/newaliases.1.gz W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{_mandir}/man5/aliases.5.gz W: unversioned-explicit-provides %{_mandir}/man8/sendmail.8.gz => Current guidelines on alternatives usage (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/UsingAlternatives, not yet written into the main guidelines but approved by FPC - see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Minutes/20090414) says to %ghost these files rather than using explicit provides. (I see this is currently under discussion on fedora-packaging) E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/sendmail E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib/sendmail.sendmail E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/sendmail.sendmail E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/sendmail.sendmail => legitimate install of /usr/lib/sendmail for backward script compatibility sendmail.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 964, tab: line 2) => easily fixed, and should be Main Binary Package: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib => rpmlint confused by a symlink to a binary elsewhere E: file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib64/sasl2/Sendmail.conf W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /usr/lib64/sasl2/Sendmail.conf => This is where cyrus-sasl puts things, so not much choice about this at the moment W: non-standard-gid /usr/sbin/sendmail.sendmail smmsp E: setgid-binary /usr/sbin/sendmail.sendmail smmsp 02755 E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/sendmail.sendmail 02755 E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/mqueue 0700 W: non-standard-uid /var/spool/clientmqueue smmsp W: non-standard-gid /var/spool/clientmqueue smmsp E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/clientmqueue 0770 => non-standard but correct W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/mail => This directory contains only the statistics file, which doesn't need rotating W: dangerous-command-in-%post chown => %post script is well-tested W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/sendmail => Listens only on localhost out of the box, so OK E: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/sendmail sm-client E: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/sendmail sm-client => Two daemons running, both can't be coherent at the same time E: zero-length /var/log/mail/statistics => Intended and OK E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/mail/make => Script needs to be editable for people that build their databases in non-standard ways Configuration Package: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/sendmail-cf/sh/makeinfo.sh 0644 => Doesn't need to be executable due to the way it's called; could shut => rpmlint up by removing the shellbang or making it executable though Documentation Package: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/sendmail-8.14.3/contrib/etrn.0 => Should be recoded to UTF-8 like everything else in Fedora E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/sendmail-8.14.3/contrib/bounce-resender.pl "/usr/local/bin/perl" E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/sendmail-8.14.3/contrib/etrn.pl "/usr/local/bin/perl" E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/sendmail-8.14.3/contrib/smcontrol.pl "/usr/local/bin/perl" => Should be using %{__perl} instead Milter Runtime Library Package: W: no-documentation => OK, there isn't really any documentation appropriate to this package 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 18 errors, 25 warnings. A few other general comments ---------------------------- Please consider adding the patches from Bug #485426 to fix socket descriptor leaks to child processes. Requires: chkconfig for %postun isn't needed. Requires: openssl/openldap aren't needed - automatic library dependencies suffice. sendmail-doc and sendmail-cf could be noarch subpackages. The %attr(0755,root,root) for %{_initrddir}/sendmail isn't necessary because the initscript is installed with the correct permissions in the first place. %global is preferred over %define for the sort of use made in this package. The initscript sources /etc/rc.d/init.d/functions and hence the main package should have a dependency on initscripts. Adding this would then mean that the directory ownership of /etc/NetworkManager/dispatcher.d was unnecessary, as the initscripts package also owns that directory. Consider adding a "/" suffix to directories owned by the package in the %files lists, for clarity. The provides for "MTA" and smtpdaemon are well before the rest of the provides in the spec; it'd be good if they were all together. %description doc says that "papers are provided in PostScript(TM) and troff formats" but it's now a PDF. Is there any point to supporting with_sasl1? It's not been used since RHEL 3 and there are lots of things in the current package that would prevent it being rebuilt for RHEL 3 (e.g. it would need to include /etc/aliases again). -- 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