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=225769 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |487059 --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-27 08:11:27 EDT --- REVIEW (sorry for the delay): +/- rpmlint outputs a LOT of messages: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/freeradius_rpmlint.txt However, as John Dennis already mentioned in bz#487059, most of these issues may be omitted safely: * non-standard GID: * non-readable files * non-config files under /etc * no-documentation The rest of rpmlint messages: freeradius.i586: W: obsolete-not-provided freeradius-dialupadmin freeradius.i586: W: obsolete-not-provided freeradius-dialupadmin-ldap freeradius.i586: W: obsolete-not-provided freeradius-dialupadmin-mysql freeradius.i586: W: obsolete-not-provided freeradius-dialupadmin-postgresql I think, this may be omitted too. freeradius.i586: E: zero-length /var/log/radius/radius.log Likewise. freeradius.i586: E: incoherent-logrotate-file /etc/logrotate.d/radiusd Due to historical reasons, the main application name differs from the package's name. We cannot change anything here. So this issue should be omitted. freeradius.i586: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/freeradius-2.1.6/rfc/pppext-eap-sim-12.txt This should be fixed at the %prep stage. freeradius.i586: E: zero-length /var/log/radius/radutmp May be omitted. freeradius.i586: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/freeradius-2.1.6/rlm_dbm This should be fixed at the %prep stage. freeradius.i586: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/radiusd Does it really should be marked as a config? I'm sure it doesn't. All installation-specific changes should be placed in /etc/sysconfig/%{name} or something similar. freeradius.i586: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/freeradius-2.1.6/rfc/draft-sterman-aaa-sip-00.txt This should be fixed at the %prep stage. freeradius.i586: E: non-standard-executable-perm /etc/raddb/certs/bootstrap 0750 I don't like the idea to place executables (scripts) into /etc/ (exept known exeptions like /etc/init.d ). However looks like this should be placed here due to historical reasons. So this issue may be omitted too. freeradius.i586: W: incoherent-init-script-name radiusd ('freeradius', 'freeradiusd') Due to historical reasons, the main application name differs from the package's name. We cannot change anything here. So this issue should be omitted. freeradius-debuginfo.i586: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/freeradius-server-2.1.6/src/main/.libs freeradius-debuginfo.i586: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/freeradius-server-2.1.6/src/main/.libs Looks like a leftover from wrongly picked up binaries byt script to generate debuginfo. I think this may be ignored. freeradius-debuginfo.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/freeradius-server-2.1.6/src/modules/rlm_ippool/rlm_ippool_tool.c freeradius-debuginfo.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/freeradius-server-2.1.6/src/modules/rlm_linelog/rlm_linelog.c This should be fixed at the %prep stage. freeradius-postgresql.i586: W: summary-not-capitalized postgresql support for freeradius freeradius-unixODBC.i586: W: summary-not-capitalized unixODBC support for freeradius This may be omitted + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec . +/- The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. At least, I cannot find any issues. Yet, some small issues still remains: * I'm sure, that %description for -devel subpackage must be changed, since it has nothing to do with static libraries. * See my note regarding ldconfig below. * I advice you to consider adding support for Firebird and iodbc, since both of them are included in Fedora. However this is not a blocker - just my suggestion. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines . + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible (as legible, as this quite complex package can be). + The sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. dist-5E-epel http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1536573 dist-f11 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1536583 + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. - The main package calls ldconfig in %post and %postun, however I didn't see any library objects stored in the default ldconfig paths. For me it seems like the leftofver. Please, correct me if I wrong. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. Note, that freeradius is a security-sensitive application, so many files marked as non-readable for non-privileged users. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. + No extremely large documentation files. + Everything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + The C header files are in a -devel subpackage. + No static libraries. + No pkgconfig(.pc) files. +/- In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}, but freeradius-devel requires freeradius-libs instead. However, I suspect, that there is some rationale behind this. Actually, I suspect also, that something is broken here, since these two libraries located not in any of the standart ldconfig paths. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Please, comment the issues, noted above, and I'll continue. -- 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