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: spampd - Transparent SMTP/LMTP proxy filter using spamassassin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218018 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-12-01 13:36 EST ------- Unofficial review as I am just a contributor. rpmlint gives two warnings on the src.rpm W: spampd strange-permission spampd.init 0744 W: spampd setup-not-quiet First one can be ignored, second one can be silenced adding -q to %setup rpmlint gives the following on the binary: E: spampd non-standard-uid /var/spool/spampd spampd E: spampd non-standard-gid /var/spool/spampd spampd E: spampd non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/spampd 0750 These can be safely ignored, the daemon runs as (newly created) user spamd W: spampd no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/spampd Can be ignored W: spampd incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/spampd $prog This one can be ignored, it is triggered by usage of the shell variable $prog for "spampd" in the script Not a blocker: BuildRoot is not the one recommended at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-f196e7b2477c2f5dd97ef64e8eacddfb517f1aa1 Good - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license is GPL, as mentioned on the upstream project page. However it is not included in the tar.gz, so upstream SHOULD be bugged to included it; for the time being, the license is (correctly) not included in %doc - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream (742c6f2cb75db54e59d044a8ee40445f spampd-2.30.tar.gz) - package compiles in mock on i386 and x86_64 architectures - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files and directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - not a GUI so no need for .desktop file - not a devel package, no header / static libraries / .la / .pc files - no need for post/postun ldconfig - service is added to list of services but not started by default and also removed at uninstallation time - all pre/post scripts are sane I guess that someone with more power then me should APPROVE it, especially if you silence the %setup stage. As a personal question: why is the initial rpm release labeled -2 ? -- 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