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: SysVinit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226475 kevin@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kevin@xxxxxxxxx |notting@xxxxxxxxxx Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2007-02-13 15:34 EST ------- See below - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines See below - 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 See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 7d5d61c026122ab791ac04c8a84db967 sysvinit-2.86.tar.gz 7d5d61c026122ab791ac04c8a84db967 sysvinit-2.86.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. See below - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - 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. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. See below - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 5 bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. Ok, I have to ask... why does this package use StUdLyCaps? The upstream package is called 'sysvinit'. I know it's been that way forever, but perhaps we could fix that now? 2. Might include the LICENSE file, which is not the GPL, but at least explains that this package is released under the GPL and where to get it. I suppose you could also bug upstream about including a copy. 3. Use the approved buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 4. There is a single include file shipped here in the main package: /usr/include/initreq.h It seems useless to make a -devel package for one header, but does it make any sense to ship it at all? Perhaps that should just get dropped? 5. Our pal rpmlint says: a) W: SysVinit summary-ended-with-dot Programs which control basic system processes. Suggest: remove . at the end of the summary? b) W: SysVinit no-url-tag Suggest: add "URL: ftp://ftp.cistron.nl/pub/people/miquels/sysvinit/"; Not very informative, but better than nothing... c) E: SysVinit setgid-binary /usr/bin/wall tty 02555 E: SysVinit non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/wall 02555 E: SysVinit non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/wall 02555 Suggest: ignore, these are needed. d) W: SysVinit devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/initreq.h Suggest: Stop shipping this? Or ignore. e) W: SysVinit dangerous-command-in-%post ln Suggest: Don't see an easy way to avoid the ln. Do you? 6. Upstream seems not very active (last release 2004), but would it still be worth trying to push some of these patches upstream? There are a lot of them here... 7. Minor: Might replace the /usr/bin in %files with %{_bindir} 8. Minor: add dist tag? 9. The 5 outstanding bugs on this package don't seem to be package related, but you might take a quick look at them to see if they can easily be solved while making the above changes? -- 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