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=637134 Jan Vcelak <jvcelak@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(jgorig@xxxxxxxxxx | |) --- Comment #2 from Jan Vcelak <jvcelak@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-10-04 09:10:33 EDT --- MUST ITEMS [!!] rpmlint bird.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C BIRD bird.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C BIRD Seems to be fine. (However "Internet Routing Daemon" can be used as well.) bird.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bird6 bird.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary birdc6 bird.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bird bird.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary birdc According to guidelines, all binaries/scripts should have manual page. This is not as important to reject the review, but you should work with upstream on this. bird.x86_64: E: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/bird bird6 bird.x86_64: E: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/bird bird6 This is bad. I suggest creating separate initscripts and bird6 subpackage. [ok] naming [ok] licensing source package doesn't contain file with license [ok] spec: American English [ok] spec: legible [ok] spec: sources match the upstream sources [ok] possible to build on rawhide (f15) x86_64 in mock [ok] buildrequires [ok] locales none included [ok] shared libraries none included [ok] no bundled libraries [ok] clean section [ok] relocatable, /usr prefix [ok] owns all directories [ok] no duplicates in %files [ok] permissions on files set properly [ok] consistent use of macros [ok] contains code or permissible content [ok] large documentation goes in -doc subpackage not needed [ok] will run properly without %doc files [ok] headers in -devel subpackage not needed [ok] static libraries in -static subpackage not needed [ok] dynamic libraries without version specification in -devel subpackage not needed [ok] devel package dependencies not needed [ok] no libtool archives [ok] desktop file for gui application not gui application [ok] doesn't own already owned directories [ok] all filenames valid utf-8 SHOULD ITEMS [--] license file in upstream release please, query upstream to include license file [--] package translation for Non-English languages IMHO this is not needed for this package [ok] builds in mock rawhide x86_64 [ok] package functions installs, starts, runs [ok] sane scriptlets [ok] subpackage dependencies fully versioned [ok] pkgconfig files not included [ok] dependencies on packages instead of binaries [--] man pages for all binaries and scripts INITSCRIPT ISSUES [!!] separate bird and bird6 Please, create separate initscripts for bird a bird6. And move all IPv6 stuff into bird6 subpackage. It will make many administrators happy. ;-) It's done the same for example in Debian. [!!] doesn't conform with initscripts guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript - missing condrestart and try-restart - validate exit codes OTHER ISSUES [--] description It's not important, but I think the description is really short. Maybe you should point out command-line interface, soft reconfiguration and powerful language for routing (as written on upstream website). [!!] requires for post and preun You are missing requirements for post and preun scriptlets. Requires(post): chkconfig Requires(preun): chkconfig [!!] restart after upgrade, stop before removing You should condrestart the service when the package is upgraded. You should stop the service when the package is being removed. (Don't forget to add 'Requires(...): initscripts' where necessary.) SUMMARY following issuses have to be fixed: - initscript(s) - specfile: requires for scriptlets - specfile: restart/stop the service on upgrade/removal -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review