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=738556 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #33 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-04-16 10:50:54 EDT --- A few items of note: * This package is missing "BuildRequires: systemd-units", which it needs to evaluate %{_unitdir}. Please be sure to fix this before commit, because otherwise, this package will fail to build successfully. * Also, since this code runs as root, you need to enable hardened build support: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#PIE I did a quick test of adding "%define _hardened_build 1" to the top of the spec file and it looks to have been applied successfully at build time. * This code is missing a copy of the GPLv2 license text. Not a packaging blocker, but you should be sure to inform upstream and ask them to add a copy of that license text in the source tree. * The package contains two copies of an identical file: /etc/gogoc/template/linux.sh /usr/share/gogoc/template/linux.sh The one in /usr/share is set chmod +x, but the one in /etc/gogoc/template/ is not. Do you really need two copies? == Review == Good: - rpmlint checks return: gogoc.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gogoc.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /etc/gogoc/template/linux.sh 0644L /bin/sh gogoc.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/gogoc/gogoc.conf 0640L gogoc.x86_64: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/gogoc gogoc-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/gogoc-1_2-RELEASE/gogoc-tsp/include/net_tcp6.h gogoc-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/gogoc-1_2-RELEASE/gogoc-tsp/src/net/net_tcp6.c 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (BSD and GPLv2) OK, text in %doc (for BSD), matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream (a0ef45c0bd1fc9964dc8ac059b7d78c12674bf67ef641740554e166fa99a2f49) - package compiles on f17 (x86_64) X missing BR: systemd-units - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file ***** Show me a fixed SRPM with those issues (aside from the GPLv2 license text) resolved and I will finish off this review and sponsor you. -- 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