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=691818 Avesh Agarwal <avagarwa@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(avagarwa@xxxxxxxx | |om) | --- Comment #2 from Avesh Agarwal <avagarwa@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-04-13 14:46:13 EDT --- Thanks for your review. (In reply to comment #1) > blockers: > > * Package doesn't build in mock/koji: > > + autoreconf -fv --install > > autoreconf: Entering directory `.' > > autoreconf: running: autopoint --force > > Can't exec "autopoint": Permission denied at /usr/share/autoconf/Autom4te/FileUtils.pm line 345. > > autoreconf: failed to run autopoint: Permission denied > > autoreconf: autopoint is needed because this package uses Gettext > This might only be a missing BuildRequires on gettext*, see below... > Fixed. > * > openpts.x86_64: W: file-not-in-%lang > /usr/share/locale/ja/LC_MESSAGES/openpts.mo > Use the %find_lang macro for translations, see > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files > Fixed. > * Source0: points to a HTML page. > If it is possible to use something similar to > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net to get a > direct URL to the tarball, this should be done. This problem is not a blocker > if no such option exists, obviously. > Can you please check again, because for me, it points to the file and lets me download the package? > * Is there a reason for the explicit "Requires: trousers openssl"? > rpm seems to be able to correctly add automatic dependencies. If these > requirements are necessary, please add a comment (per > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires ) > Fixed. > * Requires(preun, post, postun) for scriptlets are missing, see > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript#Initscripts_in_spec_file_scriptlets > Fixed. > * It seems the default configuration uses /var/lib/openpts. If so, shouldn't > the directory be owned by the package? > Fixed. > * /usr/share/openpts and /usr/share/openpts/models should be owned > by the package. > Fixed. > non-blockers: > > openpts.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openpts > > openpts.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tpm_createkey > > openpts.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ptscd > > openpts.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rm2dot > > openpts.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary uml2dot > > openpts.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ir2text > > openpts.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iml2aide > > openpts.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary iml2text > It would be nice to have man pages, but writing them is primarily upstream's > responsibility, having man pages is not a requirement. > Not fixed for the obvious reason what you stated above. > * Including the documenation from doc/ would probably be useful to users. > Please also consider including ChangeLog in %doc. > Fixed. > > openpts.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name ptscd ('openpts', 'openptsd') > Something to consider... but not a hard requirement IMHO. > Not fixed. They have this perhaps because there is already a binary named openpts in the package, so to avoid confusion another name for init script. That said, surely can talk with upstream about it. > * The parenthesized abbreviations in %description look a little strange to me: > They are not used anywhere else, so they are rather superfluous - especially > the PoC abbreviation. This purely a matter of taste, of course. > Partially fixed. PTS and TCG are standard abbreviations used by TCG. Removed PoC though. > * The correct macro for /etc/init.d is _initddir, not _initrddir. > Fixed. > * For consistency, consider using _/sbin/_chkconfig in %post > Fixed. > * The initscript should probably exit with 2, not 3, on invalid command name > (per the example in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript ) > Fixed. > * Consider using (cp -p) and (make install DESTDIR=... INSTALL='install -p') > in %install to preserve timestamps > Fixed. > * > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment As such there is no formal bug reporting system with upstream. I will send patches soon to upstream though. The updated spec/srpm is as at http://people.redhat.com/avagarwa/files/openpts/openpts.spec http://people.redhat.com/avagarwa/files/openpts/openpts-0.2.3-2.fc16.src.rpm -- 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