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: dnssec-tools - Is a tool set for use with signed DNS zones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235925 paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-04-18 17:22 EST ------- I haven't taken on a person for sponsorship yet. I'll talk to Spot about it. But in any case, here is the review. Please let me know when all issues have been fixed and I'll do a new review. It fails to compile on 64bit: RPM build errors: File not found: /var/tmp/dnssec-tools-1.1.1-1-root-root/usr/lib64/debug/usr/bin/validate.debug File not found: /var/tmp/dnssec-tools-1.1.1-1-root-root/usr/lib64/debug/usr/lib64/libsres.so.3.0.0.debug File not found: /var/tmp/dnssec-tools-1.1.1-1-root-root/usr/lib64/debug/usr/lib64/libval-threads.so.3.0.0.debug These seem to get mistakenly installed in /var/tmp/dnssec-tools-1.1.1-1-root-root/usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/ instead I am not sure why you are defining the debug package, since they are built automatically. When your debug package "cut" from the spec file, at the end I get: Wrote: /usr/src/redhat/SRPMS/dnssec-tools-1.1.1-1.src.rpm Wrote: /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/x86_64/dnssec-tools-1.1.1-1.x86_64.rpm Wrote: /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/x86_64/dnssec-tools-perlmods-1.1.1-1.x86_64.rpm Wrote: /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/x86_64/dnssec-tools-libs-1.1.1-1.x86_64.rpm Wrote: /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/x86_64/dnssec-tools-libs-devel-1.1.1-1.x86_64.rpm Wrote: /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/x86_64/dnssec-tools-debuginfo-1.1.1-1.x86_64.rpm Second: perl(Net::DNS::SEC) is needed by dnssec-tools-1.1.1-1.x86_64 It depends ona non-existing package, so this package would have to be added first before Fedora can accept this package Apart from that: FIXME: rpmlint warnings: W: dnssec-tools incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1-2 1.1.1-1 W: dnssec-tools-libs no-documentation OK: Package Naming Guidelines followed OK: spec file base name matches base package OK: Packaging Guidelines followed (isn't this a recursive loop anyways :) OK: Package complies to an opensource licence FIX: License states "BSD" but it also includes a requirement to include a disclaimer for the vendor SPARTA. So license should state "BSD-like" OK: %doc includes license file OK: package is in american english OK: spec file is readable. FIX: source field using local reference instead of full URL, eg: Source: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SourceUrl#head-27442167fe28eb345470e8db56716d62b508978c OK: md5sum of source matches that of upstream OK: package compiles into binary rpms (but see note at start or review) OK: all buildrequires listed OK: no bad locale handling FIX: calling ldconfig in %post/%postun in subpackage that installs lib files does not call %post/%postun for sub package libs-devel, which installs files in _libdir. in other words, add: %post libs-devel -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun libs-devel -p /sbin/ldconfig OK: no relocatable FIX: package creates directories it does not own: /usr/include/validator add it to the %files section Same for /usr/share/dnssec-tools and /etc/dnssec and the perl dirs OK: no duplicate entries in %files OK: every subpackage/package contains %defattr OK: package contains %clean section and rm's buildroot OK: macros used consistently OK: contains contain code, or permissable content. OK: no large documentation files in package OK: %doc items contain no running dependancies OK: includes files are in devel package only OK: no static libs OK: no .pc files without pkconfig OK: .so$ files in devel package OK: devel package requires package (though you could rewrite it to: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} instead of using hardcoded name) OK: *.la files removed correctly OK: no .desktop file requires (no GUI is build) OK: package owns no dir other package owns already OK: install calls rm -rf buildroot OK: filenames are valid UTF-8 OK: scriptlets are sane OK: basic functinality tested and works -- 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