[Bug 226405] Merge Review: selinux-doc

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=226405

Garrett Holmstrom <gholms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |gholms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

--- Comment #1 from Garrett Holmstrom <gholms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-11-16 16:31:02 EST ---
Most of this package's problems simply arise from its age.  Upstream seems to
be dead; is this package still relevant?  If it is no longer relevant maybe it
would be better to just retire it.  I will attach a full review shortly, but I
will also present the things that need to be fixed here.

- License files included in package %docs or not included in upstream source
- License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed

Just fix these with "%doc LICENSE".

- Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues
  Upstream MD5:  ???
  Your MD5:      5836fbb58dbd20586415d7f4baa0b55b  selinux-doc-1.26.tgz

Is upstream dead?  rpmlint and I get 404s from the URI in the spec file, and I
failed to find a new upstream.

- Relocatability is justified

Does "Prefix: %{_prefix}" need to be there for some reason?  I would drop it,
but if it is important to the package then the spec file should say why.

- Has dist tag

This is not a blocker, but adding a dist tag wouldn't be a bad idea to get this
package in line with most of the others.

- Correct BuildRoot tag on < F10/EL6
- Correct %clean section on < F13/EL6

Since this package is only building on F12 and up you can dump both the
BuildRoot tag and the %clean section if you want.  This also isn't required,
though the buildroot given in the spec file is somewhat unusual.

- Text files encoded in ASCII or UTF-8
  README.HIERARCHY contains non-ISO extended-ASCII characters

Perhaps the file's encoding could be converted?

- File timestamps preserved by file ops

This isn't mandatory, but would you mind adding -p switches to cp commands?

One other thing that seemed off to me is the Group field.  Shouldn't it be
"Documentation"?

-- 
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


[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]