Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: nc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226187 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx |rvokal@xxxxxxxxxx Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-03 18:09 EST ------- Where does the tarball come from? Upstream doesn't seem to have any actual tarball abailable for download. If it's from a CVS checkout, can you detail in the spec (or in a script) how you do the checkout, and name the tarball and choose the release appropriately based on the checkout date as detailed in the naming guidelines at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines Basically, the version-release pair should be something like 1.84-11.20070203cvs. If you're checking out a tag, I'm not sure what the best way to name it is. Or perhaps we could consider whether or not one of the other netcat variants is a better choice. Rpmlint has a few complaints: W: nc summary-ended-with-dot Reads and writes data across network connections using TCP or UDP. W: nc summary-ended-with-dot Reads and writes data across network connections using TCP or UDP. Easy to fix these up. W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/alta /bin/sh W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/bsh /bin/sh W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/dist.sh /bin/sh W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/irc /bin/sh W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/iscan /bin/sh W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/ncp /bin/sh W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/probe /bin/sh W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/web /bin/sh W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/webproxy /bin/sh W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/webrelay /bin/sh W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/websearch /bin/sh Documentation shouldn't be executable. Review: X I can't check whether the source files match upstream. X package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. X build root is not correct; should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) X license field matches the actual license. I can find no mention of the GPL; this looks to me to be more like the X11 license. * license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. ? latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. The requirement for pkgconfig is unnecessary, though, as glib2-devel requires it. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %makeinstall is not used. * package builds in mock. * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: nc = 1.84-10.fc7 = /bin/sh glib2 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. -- 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