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: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 ------- Additional Comments From faxguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-12-05 17:38 EST ------- > This is obviously not the same package, not the same release. It's not even > the same version as the package you have submitted in comment #31. The software development is moving much faster than progress on this review request. I apologize for giving you rpmlint output for an RPM that was more conveniently at my disposal. For your benefit, I have downloaded the SRPM given in comment #31, rebuilt it on FC6, and here is the rpmlint output: [root@dhcp031 i386]# rpmlint hylafax-5.0.0-1.i386.rpm W: hylafax incoherent-version-in-changelog 5.0.0 5.0.0-1 E: hylafax invalid-soname /usr/lib/libfaxutil.so.5.0.0 libfaxutil.so E: hylafax invalid-soname /usr/lib/libfaxserver.so.5.0.0 libfaxserver.so W: hylafax devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libfaxserver.so E: hylafax non-readable /var/spool/hylafax/etc/hosts.hfaxd 0600 E: hylafax executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.hourly/hylafax E: hylafax script-without-shebang /usr/sbin/faxsetup.linux E: hylafax executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.daily/hylafax E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/archive 0700 W: hylafax devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libfaxutil.so E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/doneq 0700 E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/sendq 0700 E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/tmp 0700 E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/docq 0700 W: hylafax non-conffile-in-etc /etc/hylafax/faxcover_example_sgi.ps E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/pollq 0700 E: hylafax executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/hylafax [root@dhcp031 i386]# > I agree. I think the source should be named hylafax+<version>.tar.gz, too. Apache distributes its webserver in a source repository named httpd-2.2.3.tar.gz. Following the suggestions here, we should petition them to change their package name to something more specific to their version, like "apache-httpd". Apache's naming convention makes complete sense to me, and undoubtedly I am not alone in this understanding as they have had it named that way for a very long time. Fedora uses the repository name as the source for the httpd package name. Thus Apache's webserver is found in a package named "httpd". However, other distributions of Apache's webserver are found in packages named differently, such as "apache-httpd". This also makes complete sense to me because it provides the distribution a means to differentiate between different http servers that it may provide. I do not know if Fedora provides webservers other than Apache's, but assuming it does not, then using the package name of "httpd" for Fedora makes complete sense as well, since it is the only http server being provided. The upstream repository will remain named as it is. As for the package name, it matters not to me if it is called "hylafax" or "hylafax+". However, my suggestion would follow what I've said above about the Apache http server. The distinction of the "+" will mean very little to Fedora users (and in-fact may make the package more-difficult to identify) unless there is more than one HylaFAX package being distributed by Fedora (say, for example, separate "hylafax+" and "hylafax.org" packages). -- 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