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=491694 --- Comment #23 from Mohammed Morsi <mmorsi@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-13 18:18:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #22) > Still not a formal review. > > == FAIL == > > * MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . > > See below. > > * MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet > the Licensing Guidelines . Is this a separate issue or does this relate to the next one? The current spec file includes "License: GPLv2+" which should satisfy this requirement. > * MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. [3] > > No license is provided for > http://svn.anyterm.org/anyterm/trunk/src/sun_forkpty.h Since I'm building from the latest release, 1.1.29, and that file doesn't exist in there (only in trunk) this is not an issue: http://svn.anyterm.org/anyterm/tags/releases/1.1/1.1.29/src/ (just out of curiosity if it was an issue, what would I need to do, eg would this something we couldn't proceed with until it was resolved upstream? once again, not an issue but I am interested) > > * MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the > license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the > license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.[4] > > %doc must be in the %files section. Done, moved %doc to %files > > * MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not > create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does > create that directory. [12] > > Needs to req. httpd. I'm wondering if we could make this optional. Yes we do install anyterm.conf to %{_sysconfdir}/httpd/conf.d/ but nothing in anyterm explicitly depends on httpd and it can be run 100% fine as is without it. I think it would be really worthwhile to make this optional so as not to impose the httpd requirement on sysadmins who want to run anyterm standalone (for example in a scenario where httpd / anytermd are running on seperate machines). Is there anyways to do this (what are your thoughts about a seperate anyterm-httpd package?) > > * MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16] > > Mixed use of %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and mixed %{__foo} vs. foo. > substituted $RPM_BUILD_ROOT w/ %{buildroot}, but not sure which 'foo' you are referring too, I tried to use all the predefined %{} macros that I could where appropriate > > > == Would be nice to fix == > > * SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should > contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [28] I'm not sure how to approach doing these translations / which are needed > * SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is > vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [31] > > Shouldn't it use >/dev/null instead of &>/dev/null for useradd/groupadd? > They're basically sane, though. Which way is standard? Googling for this, I find most specs redirect both stdout / stderr (or even just stderr) http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=groupadd+%2Fdev%2Fnull+filetype%3Aspec+&aq=f&oq=groupadd+filetype%3Aspec&aqi=&aq=&oq=&aqi=&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&fp=Xmf0jJ9P_V0 > > * Additionally: > > anyterm-cmd should perhaps be moved to %{_libexecdir}/%{name}/anyterm-cmd Done, moved it from bindir to libexecdir New SPEC and SRPM (bumped release): http://mohammed.morsi.org/blog/files/anyterm.spec http://mohammed.morsi.org/blog/files/anyterm-1.1.29-6.fc10.src_.rpm -- 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