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: sysklogd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226448 kevin@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|kevin@xxxxxxxxx |pvrabec@xxxxxxxxxx Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2007-02-16 19:53 EST ------- Sorry for the delay in reviewing this. My build machine had issues... OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - 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. See below - Sources match upstream md5sum: OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. 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. See below - 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 See below - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 7 outstanding bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. Might include the COPYING file? 2. What is the upstream source for the sysklogd-1.4.1rh.tar.gz? This looks like a locally modified version of the upstream sysklogd-1.4.1.tar.gz. Why is this done instead of using the upstream source and applying patches to it? 3. Since this package has a logrotate file, shouldn't it 'Require: logrotate' ? 4. Our handy little scripty friend rpmlint says: a) W: sysklogd prereq-use fileutils /sbin/chkconfig /etc/init.d The use of PreReq is deprecated. In the majority of cases, a plain Requires is enough and the right thing to do. Sometimes Requires(pre), Requires(post), Requires(preun) and/or Requires(postun) can also be used instead of PreReq. b) W: sysklogd unversioned-explicit-provides syslog Is this needed for an old package? Or to smooth transition to something like syslog-ng? c) W: sysklogd macro-in-%changelog postun W: sysklogd macro-in-%changelog post W: sysklogd macro-in-%changelog preun W: sysklogd macro-in-%changelog preun W: sysklogd macro-in-%changelog clean W: sysklogd macro-in-%changelog post Suggest: Change macros in changelog to use %% so rpm doesn't expand them. d) W: sysklogd mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 165, tab: line 59) Suggest: pick tabs or spaces, don't use both. e) E: sysklogd incoherent-logrotate-file /etc/logrotate.d/syslog This is due to this package being called sysklogd, and the init script being called syslog. Can we rename this to sysklogd? Or would that end up breaking too much? As a side note, I have found myself doing 'service sysklogd restart' and then having to go look and see that it's called syslog. ;) f) W: sysklogd service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/syslog In this case we can ignore that, we want a syslog by default. ;) 5. You could add a dist tag, but this package appears dead upstream, so it's unlikely that it would need to be rebased much if any. 6. There are 7 outstanding bugs. You might look through them and see if any of them could be addressed while other items are being taken care of for this review. -- 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