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: ypbind https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226663 bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-08-02 16:27 EST ------- I question my sanity for even looking at this, but I used NIS in a past life so... Here's what rpmlint has to say: W: ypbind summary-ended-with-dot The NIS daemon which binds NIS clients to an NIS domain. Picky, I guess, but easy to fix. E: ypbind tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: ypbind non-utf8-spec-file ypbind.spec It's the ø in Trond's name; iconv should fix it up. W: ypbind strange-permission ypbind.init 0755 rpmlint complains about anything that's not 644 in the SRPM; I don't think this is a big deal. W: ypbind prereq-use /sbin/chkconfig Prereq: shouldn't be used. Actually the scriptlets and their dependencies need a few fixes. W: ypbind macro-in-%changelog config % signs need doubling in %changelog. W: ypbind patch-not-applied Patch5: ypbind-1.19-debuginfo.patch I guess this patch isn't needed at all any longer; it should probably just go. The packaging guidelines require that the buildroot contains %{name}, %{version} and %{release}. You shouldn't use %makeinstall unless the usual "make DESTDIR=..." doesn't work. Everything seems to work OK with the latter, so.... You need finegrained dependencies for the scriptlets instead of Prereq: Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig Requires(preun): /sbin/chkconfig Requires(preun): /sbin/service Requires(postun): /sbin/service Initscripts must not be marked as %config files. There's a whole push to use LSB-standard initscripts, but I'm not sure where it stands and I'm not going to worry about that here. We're working on new standards for the license, but the files in the tarball don't agree about whether it's GPLv2 only or GPLv2 or later. You can probably drop the bash >= 2.0 requirement; rpm will find the need for /bin/bash on its own, and even FC-1 had bash 2.05b. This package should not own /var/yp; the filesystem pakage owns it. I'll attach a patch that fixes the minor issues; the license thing will probably require consultation with upstream. Review: * source files match upstream: f49e0706517f2761cfa45f7a02c5e1562a67b104a267b220a37fa3ab217f9e34 ypbind-mt-1.20.4.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. X summary ends in a period, annoying rpmlint * description is OK. * dist tag is present. X build root is missing %{release} ? license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint has valid complaints. X final provides and requires are missing /sbin/service config(ypbind) = 3:1.20.4-1.fc8 ypbind = 3:1.20.4-1.fc8 = /bin/bash /bin/sh /sbin/chkconfig bash >= 2.0 config(ypbind) = 3:1.20.4-1.fc8 libdbus-1.so.3()(64bit) libdbus-glib-1.so.2()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.3.2)(64bit) rpcbind yp-tools * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I have fortunately exorcised NIS from my network so I've no way to test this. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. X should not own /var/yp * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- 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