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=226211 --- Comment #4 from Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> 2010-01-12 05:08:34 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) > comments: > > 1) rpmlint *.spec *.src.rpm x86_64/* > openhpi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/openhpi/libsnmp_bc.so > openhpi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/openhpi/libipmi.so > openhpi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/openhpi/libsimulator.so > openhpi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/openhpi/libwatchdog.so > openhpi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/openhpi/libipmidirect.so > openhpi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/openhpi/liboa_soap.so > openhpi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/openhpi/libilo2_ribcl.so > openhpi.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/openhpi/libsysfs2hpi.so > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages : > """.... The following are examples of file types which should be in -devel: > * Header files (e.g. .h files) > * Unversioned shared libraries (e.g. libfoo.so). > """ > > these files should go to -devel package these files are plugins loaded with dlopen from the main process, no libraries, so they belong to the main package > --------- > > openhpi.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/openhpi 01777 > > are these permissions really required? I've done only quick testing/googling > (without proper configuration), but didn't find anything about this this is what upstream uses, but I can ask them about reasoning > ----------------- > > openhpi-libs.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided openhpi > > why openhpi-libs obsoletes openhpi? for version specified, there were no > openhpi-libs provided, but this line would lead to yum replacing openhpi with > just openhpi-libs -> openhpid and other files will be missing > > what is your rationale for this? this is a result from splitting the openhpi package into openhpi and openhpi-libs (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MultilibTricks#Splitting_libraries_into_separate_packages - can't find a more official doc now) > ----------- > > openhpi-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation > > no problem with this one > > 2) Correct english - see WordUsage.html > > %description > > hot swap > -------- > Correct. Two words, lower case. Capitalize when used at the beginning of a > sentence only. Do not use ‘hotswap’ or ‘hot-swap’. > > plug-in > ------- > Correct. Do not use "plugin". > A hardware or software module that adds a specific feature or service to a > larger system. For example, a number of plug-ins are available for the Netscape > Navigator browser that enable it to display different types of audio or video > messages. Navigator plug-ins are based on MIME file types. > > but these are not blockers ;-) hm, I didn't expect a spell-checker in review :-) > > 3) too much wildcards under %files section > > If upstream makes some changes to it's tarball and add/remove some files, this > is not going to catch anything. It's good practice to list at least all files > under %{_bindir} and %{_sbindir}. This will let you know if there is any > new/missing one. I don't agree. Using wildcards copies upstream intentions what belongs where. There are other tools and processes that should check differences between 2 versions of the package. > 4) sources does not match upstream > $ curl -s http://downloads.sourceforge.net/openhpi/openhpi-2.14.1.tar.gz | > md5sum > d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e - > $ cat sources > 1533972a05f2ed61f3ae441ecd3df5a9 openhpi-2.14.1.tar.gz running spectool -g on the spec file returns the right source archive (with the 1533... md5sum) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review