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: powerdns - A modern, advanced and high performance authoritative-only nameserver Alias: powerdns https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219973 kevin@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |kevin@xxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2006-12-26 15:58 EST ------- I would be happy to review this package... See below - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 33b20ef1b767f93297101f2aa09e99ed pdns-2.9.20.tar.gz 33b20ef1b767f93297101f2aa09e99ed pdns-2.9.20.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK/See below - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: See below - Should build in mock. See below - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have sane scriptlets. See below - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. The upstream tar is 'pdns' and their shipped spec file makes a 'pdns-static' package. Should this package be called 'pdns' instead of 'powerdns' ? 2. Doesn't build on x86_64 under mock. Looks like they have a hard coded check for mysql libs using /usr/lib: checking for MySQL library directory... configure: error: Didn't find the mysql library dir in '/usr/local/mysql/lib/mysql /usr/local/lib/mysql /opt/mysql/lib/mysql /usr/lib/mysql /usr/local/mysql/lib /usr/local/lib /opt/mysql/lib /usr/lib' error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.75004 (%build) I would be happy to provide access to a x86_64 box for testing if you need one. 3. You should probably have your Requires for the subpackages also require the release, ie: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} 4. Why the ldconfig calls in post/postun? The main package has no library files at all, and the subpackages just have .so's in %{_libdir}/%{name}/ directory that I assume are dlopened by the package when configured to do so. There should be no need for any ldconfig that I can see here, unless I am missing something... -- 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