Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: epel-release EPEL repository configuration and setup https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233236 ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2007-03-24 19:45 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. See below - Sources match upstream md5sum: OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. See below - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. See below - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. Issues: 1. Since redhat/fedora is upstream for this package, can you add a note as suggested in: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#head-413e1c297803cfa9de0cc4c56f3ac384bff5dc9e 2. The up2date files present a problem. Should up2date be required by this package (so that the post commands work right)? If so, that would be anoying to places where up2date was not installed. Perhaps it should be in a subpackage, only installed by those that have up2date? Should this package require 'yum' ? 3. Where does the version come from? 4 for epel4? Is the epel5 version of this going to be version 5? If so, perhaps there is no need for the dist tag? 4. rpmlint says: W: epel-release non-conffile-in-etc /etc/epel-release W: epel-release non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-EPEL I think those can be ignored. W: epel-release dangerous-command-in-%postun cp Do we need to make a rpmsave there? 5. The description could be a bit more verbose. Perhaps you could expand EPEL in case there are people who don't know what it means? -- 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