Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905024 Tomas Hozza <thozza@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Tomas Hozza <thozza@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > (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. OK, -devel package has it so no issue here. > > (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). I checked it again and it seems you are right. > > (4): SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. > > Note: Patch0 (0001-Rpath.patch) > > > > Please consider renaming this patch. > > Renamed. Resolved in bind10-1.0.0-0.2.beta.fc18.src.rpm. > > (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. Thank you for explanation. > > (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. I agree. > > (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. Having a sticky bit is not a big issue, it's just non standard. Thank you for explanation. Issues have been resolved. This PACKAGE HAS BEEN APPROVED! -- 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=nV2LtBsDdB&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review