Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813982 Jos de Kloe <josdekloe@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |josdekloe@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Jos de Kloe <josdekloe@xxxxxxxxx> --- here are a first few remarks: first a maybe ignorant question from my side: what does this package add to the yum system that we already have? Isn't that capable of doing the same? Could you please explain a little. mock tests run fine on my f18 system: mock -r fedora-18-x86_64 --rebuild rpmt-py-1.0.8-1.fc18.src.rpm this creates 3 rpms in /var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/result rpmlint results on these: $ rpmlint rpmt-py-1.0.8-1.fc18.noarch.rpm rpmt-py.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rpmlib -> rpm lib, rpm-lib, millibar 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint rpmt-py-1.0.8-1.fc18.src.rpm rpmt-py.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rpmlib -> rpm lib, rpm-lib, millibar rpmt-py.src: W: invalid-url Source0: rpmt-py-1.0.8.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint rpmt-py-selinux-1.0.8-1.fc18.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. so all seems fine here. There is no license file in the package According to: http://sourceforge.net/projects/quattor/ Applicable licenses seem to be: Apache License V2.0 and EU DataGrid Software License According to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines "If the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake." so please file a request or bug report upstream and refer to it here. Also according to this section on the same page: "Dual Licensing Scenarios: If your package is dual licensed (or triple licensed, etc.), the spec must reflect this by using "or" as a separator. Note that this only applies when the contents of the package are actually under a dual license, and not when the package contains items under multiple, distinct, and independent licenses. " therefore you should mention both licenses in the spec file, separated by "or". On https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines The File Dependencies section states: "Rpm gives you the ability to depend on files instead of packages. Whenever possible you should avoid file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin." So in stead of requiring /usr/share/selinux/devel/policyhelp it might be better to require the selinux-policy-doc package that contains it. It also is not clear to me why this python module would require a documentation package at runtime. Could you please explain this? (could be my own ignorance since I am not intimately familiar with selinux, but a few comments on the subject would still be apropriate I think). A, I see now that it actually is mentioned here as well: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SELinux_Policy_Modules_Packaging_Draft?rd=PackagingDrafts/SELinux/PolicyModules so sorry to bother you with it. In addition, /usr/sbin/semodule and /sbin/restorecon are both part of the policycoreutils package, so requiring that one in stead would simplify the Requires(post) line a little. The section Runtime Dependencies on this page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SELinux_Policy_Modules_Packaging_Draft?rd=PackagingDrafts/SELinux/PolicyModules states: "If you are not building an integrated package, then the myapp-selinux package needs to have a dependency on the myapp package." So I would have expected this line: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} in the selinux section of the spec file. -- 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=z0k2kohCSZ&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review