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: net-tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226193 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-18 23:10 EST ------- Not much from rpmlint: W: net-tools summary-ended-with-dot Basic networking tools. Trivial to fix W: net-tools no-url-tag W: net-tools-debuginfo no-url-tag Upstream seems mostly dead, but it still makes sense to list something. I suggest using http://www.tazenda.demon.co.uk/phil/net-tools/ E: net-tools broken-syntax-in-scriptlet-requires Requires(post,preun): chkconfig Unfortunately these have to be listed separately. Usually the dependency is on /sbin/chkconfig, and your scriptlets will also need a dependency on /sbin/service: Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig Requires(preun): /sbin/chkconfig Requires(preun): /sbin/service Requires(postun): /sbin/service W: net-tools mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 206, tab: line 1) It's good to be consistent, but mainly this is romlint being overly picky. W: net-tools conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/ethers W: net-tools conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/netplug/netplugd.conf These probably do need %config(noreplace) E: net-tools zero-length /etc/ethers Normally zero-length files aren't shipped, but in this case I suppose something needs to be installed there, and I don't think the file will accept comments. W: net-tools incoherent-init-script-name netplugd This seems bogus; rpmlint wants to see initscripts named after the package. The only other issue I saw: The netplug source should also be a full URL, since it has its own upstream: http://www.red-bean.com/~bos/netplug/netplug-%{npversion}.tar.bz2 Review: * source files match upstream: 15e7928c819c72108432b0d573110630ff6eb2f7be05e5a6dc1dc04fa05f63b1 netplug-1.2.9.tar.bz2 7ae4dd6d44d6715f18e10559ffd270511b6e55a8900ca54fbebafe0ae6cf7d7b net-tools-1.60.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * 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 (BR: libselinux is redundant because libselinux-devel requires it.) * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint has a few valid complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: config(net-tools) = 1.60-77.fc7 net-tools = 1.60-77.fc7 = /bin/sh chkconfig config(net-tools) = 1.60-77.fc7 libselinux.so.1()(64bit) * %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. X scriptlets are OK, but there are dependency issues. * 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 static libraries. * 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