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: postgrey - Postfix Greylisting Policy Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218020 tmz@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tmz@xxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tmz@xxxxxxxxx 2006-12-22 11:16 EST ------- I'll review this Matthias. (Fair warning: it's my first review, so if anyone else wants to jump in and make sure it's done right, it will be welcome.) * rpmlint runs without errors on the srpm (just a few warnings) $ rpmlint postgrey-1.27-3.src.rpm W: postgrey strange-permission postgrey.init 0755 W: postgrey setup-not-quiet These warnings are minor and easily silenced with the addition of -q to %setup and chmod'ing postgrey.init. Neither of them are blockers as far as I know. Anyone know differently? * Adheres to naming guidelines * Specfile name matches package name * Meets the packaging guidelines The perl(IO::Multiplex) Requires seems unneeded. RPM automatically picks up perl(Net::Server::Multiplex) which is provided by the perl-Net-Server package and perl-Net-Server requires perl-IO-Multiplex. * License meets open-source requirements * License included in %doc * License field matches the upstream license * Specfile is in American English * Specfile is legible * Source matches upstream (md5sum: df3a8b4a0c6ab7e8e5bb5be0de096c47) * Builds, installs, and works on FC6, i386 * Owns directories that it creates * Does not own files or dirs of other packages * File list has no duplicates * File perms are generally sane Why is /var/spool/postfix/postgrey 0751? I don't see anything in the postgrey docs about the need to have such tight permissions on the dbdir. Can you enlighten me? * Specfile includes %clean section * Macros used consistently * Package contains code or permissable content * Builds in mock against fedora-{5,6,development}-i386-core targets * Scriplets are sane * Package functions correctly (tested on FC6) -- 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