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: basesystem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225608 ------- Additional Comments From pknirsch@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-02 10:20 EST ------- Sorry it took a while to get to do the fixes. Here first my comments on the findings: > W: basesystem summary-ended-with-dot The skeleton package which defines a simple Red Hat Linux system. Fixed > W: basesystem invalid-license public domain Fixed, now using Public Domain (as requested below). > W: basesystem no-url-tag There is now upstream for this package, so the only option would be to either make it http://www.redhat.com/ or http://www.fedoraproject.org/ > W: basesystem prereq-use setup filesystem Fixed. Now it's Requires(Pre): setup filesystem > W: basesystem hardcoded-path-in-buildroot-tag /var/tmp/basesystem-root Fixed. Using the latest recommended BuildRoot > E: basesystem no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install Fixed. Added empty %install section > E: basesystem no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean Fixed. Added empty %clean section > W: basesystem no-%prep-section Fixed. Added empty %prep section > W: basesystem no-%build-section Fixed. Added empty %build section > W: basesystem no-%install-section Fixed. Added empty %install section > W: basesystem no-%clean-section Fixed. Added empty %clean section RPM: > W: basesystem summary-ended-with-dot The skeleton package which defines a simple Red Hat Linux system. Fixed. See above. > W: basesystem invalid-license public domain Fixed. See above. > W: basesystem no-url-tag Possible "fixes" listed above. > W: basesystem no-documentation basesystem doesn't have a source, nor does it contain any files. so unecessary. Random issues: > * Change "Red Hat Linux" to "Fedora" (both in summary and description). blocker. Fixed. > * What is the version "8.0"?! I can't say this follows naming guidelines. Version of basesystem is arbitrary. > * Make release integer (6?). Fixed, but release can (and often will) consiste of X.Y.Z components. > * Using Prereq is bad. Change to Requires. blocker. Absolutely agreed. Fixed. > * Capitalize "Public Domain". Fixed. See above. > * Change BuildRoot to %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Fixed. Used the even newer recommended BuildRoot entry as per fedoraproject.org > * description says this should be the first package installed on a system, but the package Prereq's "setup" and "filesystem". Confusing. Uhm, yea. Thats one of the things i'd like to go over with some folks and discuss on f-d-l. Imo the "correct" order of those 3 packages would be: basesystem filesystem setup For the simple reason as basesystem (as the description also already says) should be the first package on a system. Then filesystem, as it creates the basic directory structure of the system. And third setup, which contains the basic setup for the system. I think one of the problems though is that in order to basesystem, filesystem and setup pulled in glibc requires basesystem, which then in turn pulls in filesystem and setup via the Requires(Pre): [phil@kfurt tmp]$ rpm -q --whatrequires basesystem glibc-2.5-9 [phil@kfurt tmp]$ rpm -q --whatrequires filesystem basesystem-8.0-5.1.1 lockdev-1.0.1-10 SysVinit-2.86-14 mkinitrd-5.1.19.2-1 nautilus-2.16.2-5.el5 [phil@kfurt tmp]$ rpm -q --whatrequires setup filesystem-2.4.0-1 basesystem-8.0-5.1.1 dump-0.4b41-2.fc6 sendmail-8.13.8-2.el5 * Add empty sections for %prep, %build, %install, and %clean. blocker. Fixed. Added empty sections for those. * Theoretically, the %files section should contain a %defattr line. Fixed. Added it, just for completeness. Summary: Overall should contain now nearly all recommended fixes. Only 2 questions are: - What to do with URL? Really not happy about any "arbitrary" URL there. - Discuss on f-d-l how to go about fixing the requires chain. Read ya, Phil -- 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