Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905024 --- Comment #2 from Adam Tkac <atkac@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #1) > ISSUES: > ------- > > (1): Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see > attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. > > Unversioned so-files > -------------------- > bind10-1.0.0-0.1.beta.fc17.x86_64.rpm: > /usr/lib64/python3.2/site-packages/isc/log.so > bind10-1.0.0-0.1.beta.fc17.x86_64.rpm: > /usr/lib64/python3.2/site-packages/isc/util/cio/socketsession.so > bind10-1.0.0-0.1.beta.fc17.x86_64.rpm: > /usr/lib64/python3.2/site-packages/libutil_io_python.so > bind10-1.0.0-0.1.beta.fc17.x86_64.rpm: > /usr/lib64/python3.2/site-packages/pydnspp.so > bind10-dns-1.0.0-0.1.beta.fc17.x86_64.rpm: > /usr/lib64/python3.2/site-packages/isc/acl/_dns.so > bind10-dns-1.0.0-0.1.beta.fc17.x86_64.rpm: > /usr/lib64/python3.2/site-packages/isc/acl/acl.so > bind10-dns-1.0.0-0.1.beta.fc17.x86_64.rpm: > /usr/lib64/python3.2/site-packages/isc/datasrc/datasrc.so > bind10-dns-1.0.0-0.1.beta.fc17.x86_64.rpm: > /usr/libexec/bind10/backends/memory_ds.so > bind10-dns-1.0.0-0.1.beta.fc17.x86_64.rpm: > /usr/libexec/bind10/backends/sqlite3_ds.so > bind10-dns-1.0.0-0.1.beta.fc17.x86_64.rpm: > /usr/libexec/bind10/backends/static_ds.so > > This is probably OK. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Right, those libs shouldn't be versioned. > (2): Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. > Note: No Requires: %{name}t = %{version}-%{release} in %package > libs, %package devel > > Please add %{?_isa} macro in %package libs and %package devel Requires > sections. This macro is needed only in -devel pkg because no other subpackage explicitly requires bind10-libs. > > (3): License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > > License is part of bind10-libs subpackage. But this subpackage is > not Required by the base package! I think you should add Requires: > %{name}-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} into the base package. Since binaries in the base package depends on libraries shipped in bind10-libs, this dependency is automatically generated (for example b10-sockcreator from bind10 depends on libb10-exceptions.so from bind10-libs). > > (4): SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. > Note: Patch0 (0001-Rpath.patch) > > Please consider renaming this patch. Renamed. > (5): %check is present and all tests pass. > > %check section is NOT present and no tests are run. Please consider > adding > %check section and run tests provided by upstream. Tests require root privileges so it's not possible to run them during build. > > (6): Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is > arched. > Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1003520 bytes in /usr/share 901120 > bind10-1.0.0-0.1.beta.fc17.x86_64.rpm 10240 > bind10-libs-1.0.0-0.1.beta.fc17.x86_64.rpm 61440 > bind10-dns-1.0.0-0.1.beta.fc17.x86_64.rpm 30720 > bind10-dhcp-1.0.0-0.1.beta.fc17.x86_64.rpm > > Please explain why data in /usr/share are not packed separately or > pack them in a separate subpackage. >From my point of view ~1MB of documentation is not much so I'm not going to create separate doc package for now. > (7): RPMlint errors: > > bind10.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/bind10/cmdctl-certfile.pem 0640L > bind10.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/bind10/cmdctl-keyfile.pem 0640L > bind10.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/bind10 01775L > bind10.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/bind10/cmdctl-accounts.csv 0640L > > This looks OK to me. Correct me if I'm wrong. Also please explain > the usage of sticky bit on /var/bind10. Without the sticky bit on /var/bind10, bind10 cannot run under unprivileged user. This might be a bug in bind10 but I'm not sure, yet. For now we can leave /var/bind10 with sticky bit. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1NLxb0GCPp&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review