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: ser2net - Proxy that allows tcp connections to serial ports https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208680 jima@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(tcallawa@xxxxxxxxx | |m) ------- Additional Comments From jima@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-10-02 12:15 EST ------- Using my own review checklist: http://beer.tclug.org/fedora-extras/review-checklist-1.1.txt 1. `rpmlint ser2net-2.3-1.fc?.*.rpm` returns: W: ser2net service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/ser2net More on this below (#38). SRPM and -debuginfo package have no rpmlint output. 2. Package appears to meet Package Naming Guidelines. 3. Spec is ser2net.spec, check. 4. Package appears to follow Packaging Guidelines. 5. Upstream site lists package as GPL. 6. Spec agrees. 7. %doc contains COPYING. 8. Spec appears to be American English. 9. Spec seems legible. 10. Tarball md5 matches upstream (5f83a3e8aec18331cb61069dccdfba47). 11. Package builds under FC5/i386, FC5/ppc, and devel/i386. 12. n/a, unless it fails under x86_64. 13. Package builds in Plague, so I imagine all necessary BRs are included. 14. Package does not appear to attempt to handle locales either properly nor improperly. 15. n/a, no library files. 16. Package does not appear to be designed to be relocatable. 17. Package owns all directories it creates. 18. No duplicate files. 19. Permissions appear to be sane. 20. Spec contains valid %clean section. 21. Macro use appears consistent. 22. Package contains code, not content. 23. %doc is minimal. 24. %doc doesn't affect runtime. 25. n/a, no header files or static libraries. 26. n/a, no .pc files. 27. n/a, no library files. 28. n/a, no -devel subpackage. 29. n/a, no .la files. 30. n/a, not a GUI application. 31. Package doesn't appear to have file conflicts with other packages. 32. Release tag contains %{?dist}. 33. n/a, already contains (and uses) COPYING. 34. n/a, no translations. 35. Package builds in Plague for FC5/i386, FC5/ppc, & devel/i386. 36. I can't verify x86_64, but package builds everywhere else, yes. 37. Package works on FC5/i386, at least. Neat package, too. 38. Scriptlet use appears to violate documented protocol: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#head-69c816fcf14e5130694c81f1ffa17a553ac94302 >From my understanding of this text, and other package reviews, services should not be automatically enabled, especially without checking whether the transaction is an installation or an upgrade. 39. n/a, no subpackages. Unless I'm mistaken (which, admittedly, is quite possible), I don't believe this package quite passes review. (Sorry...) -- 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