Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Fedora Directory Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228555 jeff@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From jeff@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-14 10:48 EST ------- * source files match upstream - no differences found when comparing included tarball with tarball generated by included script ! package meets naming and packaging guidelines. See below. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (fc7 i386, fc6 i386). * package installs properly. ! rpmlint says: W: fedora-ds invalid-license GPL plus extensions W: fedora-ds-devel invalid-license GPL plus extensions W: fedora-ds-debuginfo invalid-license GPL plus extensions W: fedora-ds invalid-license GPL plus extensions Perhaps should use just GPL as the license tag? E: fedora-ds dir-or-file-in-tmp /var/tmp/fedora-ds Is this directory really needed? W: fedora-ds log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/fedora-ds Is there something built into the directory server to rotate log files? E: fedora-ds-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib W: fedora-ds-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/fedora-ds/libns-dshttpd.so libns-dshttpd.so.0.0.0 W: fedora-ds-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/fedora-ds/libslapd.so libslapd.so.0.0.0 W: fedora-ds-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/fedora-ds/libds_admin.so libds_admin.so.0.0.0 I think that these can be ignored, rpmlint doesn't seem to handle this case appropriately * %check is not present; There is no test code in the districution. * shared libraries are present, ldconfig called in %post & %postun * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * header files are in -devel package * unversioned .so files in -devel package * no pkconfig file * no libtool .la droppings. Other notes: * "-p" should be used to preserve timestamps when installing slapi-plugin.h * Include a comment near the "Source0" line that indicates that the "fedora-ds-cvs.sh" script should be used to generate the tarball. * Release should be 0.1.%{cvsdate}%{?dist} -- 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