https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1193175 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Check and resolve the few TODO items and I'll approve this package and sponsor you. == Review == TODO items: * Please make sure the systemd scripts work properly. This isn't a blocker, but I just didn't have the arrangement to test them out fully. * The -devel package has these files in it: /usr/lib64/sxclient/libsxf_aes256.so /usr/lib64/sxclient/libsxf_attribs.so /usr/lib64/sxclient/libsxf_undelete.so /usr/lib64/sxclient/libsxf_zcomp.so I know sometimes the .so files in a subdir of %{_libdir} are not devel libraries, but rather, plugin libraries/modules that are needed for proper operation. Please confirm that these files should be in the -devel subpackage. * Spec says license is GPLv2, COPYING says it is "GPLv2 with exceptions and LGPLv2+ and BSD and MIT". Please correct the spec License field. Good: - rpmlint checks return: skylable-sx.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Scalable -> Salable, Callable, Calculable skylable-sx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deduplication -> reduplication, duplication, quadruplication Safe to ignore. skylable-sx.src:4: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/systemd/system/sx-nginx.service skylable-sx.src:5: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/systemd/system/sxserver.service Safe to ignore. skylable-sx.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libselinux-utils Safe to ignore, false positive. skylable-sx.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Scalable -> Salable, Callable, Calculable skylable-sx.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deduplication -> reduplication, duplication, quadruplication Safe to ignore. skylable-sx.x86_64: E: non-readable /usr/share/selinux/packages/sxserver.pp 0600L Fine. Selinux policy does not need to be +r. skylable-sx.x86_64: W: non-ghost-in-run /run/sxserver This is safe to ignore, package follows Fedora /run guidelines. skylable-sx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sx.fcgi skylable-sx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sxserver skylable-sx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sxsetup skylable-sx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sxreport-server skylable-sx.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sxadm skylable-sx-client.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sxsim Upstream should consider writing man pages for these binaries, but it is not a blocker for Fedora/EPEL. skylable-sx-client.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Cloud Infrastructure Group is unused, this is safe to ignore. skylable-sx-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Safe to ignore. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines (except license tag, see above) - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream (ba96db807c1ff1265a7476d31c2d7fbb14a9a3f3bc55950e1c8da7edaa00a98a) - package compiles on F-22 (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files - post/postun ldconfig ok - devel requires libs package n-v-r -- 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