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: kerneloops - Tool to automatically collect and submit kernel crash signatures https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427586 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-01-04 23:38 EST ------- Interestingly, the tarball in this srpm and the one upstream are not the same; several files differ, though all seem to differ by comments and whitespace. A few rpmlint complaints: kerneloops.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 53, tab: line 1) Not a big deal. kerneloops.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /etc/dbus-1/system.d/kerneloops.dbus I think this shouldn't be executable; the other files I see there don't seem to be. kerneloops.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/autostart/kerneloops-applet.desktop This is OK. kerneloops.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man8/kerneloops.1.gz This shouldn't be executable either. kerneloops.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/kerneloops Services shouldn't be enabled by default. This usually means the first entry on the chkconfig: line in the initscript should be '-'; I guess Default-Start: should be either not present, empty, or '-' as well, but I'm not sure which it should be, or if we even have anything that pays attention to it. kerneloops.x86_64: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/kerneloops $prog This is bogus. Other issues: The scriptlets to start and stop the service differ from the recommended ones. For example, the %preun script won't trigger on package removals, so removing the package will leave the service still running. And it looks like a %postun script was intended (given the dependency for it) but it's not actually in the spec. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets I've not seen a Makefile call desktop-file-itself, but don't see anything wrong with the way it's being called so I don't see any reason for the spec to call it explicitly. Checklist: X source files don't match upstream: 2c5b6937983ea046d74359cb470e9002a329192998c7f4e50c1121ae6c381dc9 kerneloops-0.9.tar.gz 600aa09dbeaa439e1268f514b8b4bdcf0c51c2efbb26e23a1925e05387581b71 ../kerneloops-0.9.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * 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 (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint has some valid complaints * final provides and requires are sane: config(kerneloops) = 0.9-1.fc9 kerneloops = 0.9-1.fc9 = /bin/bash /bin/sh chkconfig config(kerneloops) = 0.9-1.fc9 initscripts libcurl.so.4()(64bit) libdbus-1.so.3()(64bit) libdbus-glib-1.so.2()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libnotify.so.1()(64bit) * %check is present but disabled; according to comments, the test suite is broken upstream. I have not attempted to test this package. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %find_lang used properly to collect translations. X service management scriptlets are not the recommended ones. * 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/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review