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=668153 --- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-01-13 08:47:31 EST --- Yes, the current situation with the /etc/resolv.conf filling is a mess. Also there are a lot of packages which doesn almost the same things, so adding another one is not an issue. I personally have no objections against openresolv, so (keeping in mind that it neither conflicts with NetworkManager nor pretends to be installed by default) here is my REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable - rpmlint is NOT silent work ~: rpmlint Desktop/openresolv-3.4.1-1.fc15.* openresolv.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) resolv -> resolve, resole, resold openresolv.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resolv -> resolve, resole, resold ^^^ False positive. openresolv.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/resolvconf.8.gz 3375: bad character definition openresolv.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/resolvconf.8.gz 3379: warning: macro `\}' not defined openresolv.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/resolvconf.conf.5.gz 3375: bad character definition openresolv.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/resolvconf.conf.5.gz 3379: warning: macro `\}' not defined ^^^ I failed to find what caused this message, but I'm suspection that it is triggered by configuration snippets, containing curly brackets. I'm not sure whether it's a issue or not. openresolv.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) resolv -> resolve, resole, resold openresolv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resolv -> resolve, resole, resold openresolv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnsmasq -> dismast, kinsman, desman openresolv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resolvconf -> resolvable, resolved, resolve ^^^ False positive. openresolv.src: W: strange-permission openresolv-3.4.1.tar.bz2 0755L openresolv.src: W: strange-permission openresolv-service-status-quiet.patch 0755L openresolv.src: W: strange-permission openresolv.spec 0755L ^^^ This should be fixed as well (easyfix). 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings. work ~: + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (BSD). + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. Koji scratchbuild for F-15: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2718940 + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 The package is not designed to be relocatable. - The package MUST own all directories that it creates. Please, mark explicitly %{_libexecdir}/resolvconf as %dir in the %files section. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. +/- Permissions on files are set properly. Just drop executable permissions from original sources (spec-file, patch and tarball). 0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware. + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. 0 No header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so). 0 No devel sub-package. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Almost finished. Please, address issues, noted above, and I'll continue. -- 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