[Bug 1060386] Review Request: pandorafms-agent - Pandora FMS Linux agent.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060386



--- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> ---
> Prefix:             /usr/share

Defining %{prefix} via a Prefix tag would mark the package as being
relocatable. That's important to know, and the following applies:

  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Relocatable_packages


Currently, the package contents are not relocatable, so overriding %prefix with
/usr/share is just a bad idea. Instead, use existing macros that inherit from
eachother, such as %_bindir, %_datadir, %_mandir.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros

[...]

> About the fedora-review process, I think that should be done by a reviewer,
> right?. 

Why would you not perform a self-review of your own package with the help of
tools like "rpmlint -i" (mandatory) and "fedora-review"? ;-)  How do you decide
whether you believe your package would pass review? You need a reviewer for the
approval of the package, but not for re-writing your spec file. If you haven't
installed/used Mock before, doing that would be good exercise.

Beyond that, all package submitters are expected to be able to know the
ReviewGuidelines and also do a few reviews of packages in the queue.

  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
  http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/


> http://code.pandorafms.com/files/pandorafms-agent.spec

I've examined the diff against the first version, and you haven't changed much.

Please start with running "rpmlint -i" on the src.rpm *and* all built rpms *at
once*. Get familiar with rpmlint errors/warnings. Feel free to ignore obvious
false positives in the report, but fix anything else. Preferably add a comment
here about whether/when you think what rpmlint reports is correct or incorrect.

The spec file does a lot of questionable/strange/unusual things without any
comments in the spec file. Some of it is not covered by the packaging
guidelines, because nobody would do such things. If you added
comments/explanations in your %install, %preun and %post sections, for example,
a reviewer and/or sponsor could understand _why_ you think you need to do the
stuff you do in those sections. As a start, please try to explain what you do
in %install, %preun and %post sections and why you do it in those sections.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]