[Bug 847322] Review Request: libnetfilter-cttimeout - Timeout policy tuning for Netfilter/conntrack

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847322

--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> ---
Koji scratchbuild for F-19:

* http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4409524

REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint is almos silent

work ~/Desktop: rpmlint libnetfilter_cttimeout-*
libnetfilter_cttimeout.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) conntrack ->
contract
libnetfilter_cttimeout.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nfct -> NFC
libnetfilter_cttimeout.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US alloc ->
allot, alloy, allow
libnetfilter_cttimeout.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US attr ->
tart, attar, attn
libnetfilter_cttimeout.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ctnetlink
-> interlink
libnetfilter_cttimeout.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) conntrack ->
contract
libnetfilter_cttimeout.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nfct ->
NFC
libnetfilter_cttimeout.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US alloc ->
allot, alloy, allow
libnetfilter_cttimeout.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US attr ->
tart, attar, attn
libnetfilter_cttimeout.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
ctnetlink -> interlink
libnetfilter_cttimeout.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/libnetfilter_cttimeout-1.0.0/COPYING
libnetfilter_cttimeout-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US)
libnetfilter -> filibusterer
libnetfilter_cttimeout-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US)
cttimeout -> ct timeout, ct-timeout, timeout
libnetfilter_cttimeout-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l
en_US libnetfilter -> filibusterer
libnetfilter_cttimeout-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l
en_US cttimeout -> ct timeout, ct-timeout, timeout
libnetfilter_cttimeout-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) conntrack
-> contract
libnetfilter_cttimeout-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
nfct -> NFC
libnetfilter_cttimeout-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
alloc -> allot, alloy, allow
libnetfilter_cttimeout-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
attr -> tart, attar, attn
libnetfilter_cttimeout-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
ctnetlink -> interlink
libnetfilter_cttimeout-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 20 warnings.
work ~/Desktop: 

^^^ All these messages are either false positives of cosmetic ones so they can
be ignored safely.

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines. All other
libnetfilter-packages are named in the same manner - libnetfilter_something.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (GPLv2
or later, as stated in the source files).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum libnetfilter_cttimeout-1.0.0.tar.bz2*
aeab12754f557cba3ce2950a2029963d817490df7edb49880008b34d7ff8feba 
libnetfilter_cttimeout-1.0.0.tar.bz2
aeab12754f557cba3ce2950a2029963d817490df7edb49880008b34d7ff8feba 
libnetfilter_cttimeout-1.0.0.tar.bz2.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
+ The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's
default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT). Note - this isn't necessary anymore if you don't have any
plans for EL5 and EL6.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ Header files are stored in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.
+ The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package and necessary runtime
requirement added (picked up automaticaly by rpmbuild).
+ The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a
-devel package.

- The -devel package MUST require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency and the _isa macro: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}

+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT). Note - this isn't necessary anymore if you don't have any
plans for EL5 and EL6.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.


Almost done!

* Please, add the _isa macro as a dependency for the *-devel subpackage and
I'll finish it.
* Consider removing stuff required for EL5/EL6 only if you don't have any plans
for these branches.
* Drop defattr from %files sections - this isn't used anymore (even in EL5).

-- 
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



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]