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: tmpwatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226495 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jbwillia@xxxxxxxxxxx, docs- | |list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-01-11 14:17 EST ------- I took a further look and have a couple of additional issues. To sumarize: I there's really no upstream, please make a note of that in the spec. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL If it's hosted internally to Red Hat, please consider transferring it to some externally visible site such as fedorahosted.org. Parallel make: there's only one source file so there's really no point, but if you're fixin things you might as well future-proof thins. Then there's this rpmlint complaint: %{_sysconfdir} is generally preferred to /etc. tmpwatch.x86_64: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.daily/tmpwatch This one is interesting. I'm guessing that this was marked as %config in the past because someone was annoyed that a package update wiped out their changes. However: A shell script is a really poor configuration interface. If we end up having to protect an additional directory in /tmp from cleanup, there will be issues because we can't update that script. Would it be at all possible to move the bits that people might want to configure into a file in /etc/sysconfig? It doesn't look like it should be difficult at all. The only licensing information I can see is in tmpwatch.c, which says only "under the terms of the GPL". Isn't Red Hat developed code supposed to be GPLv2 only? I'm told it's corporate policy. BuildRoot: is not correct; it needs to have at least %release, but would be better if it were it were one of the recommended values. Checklist: ? can't compare sources with upstream. * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written. X should use %{_sysconfdir} * summary is OK. * description is OK. X build root is improper. ? license field matches the actual license. ? not sure if the license is correct. * BuildRequires are proper (none) * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint has valid complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: config(tmpwatch) = 2.9.12-2 tmpwatch = 2.9.12-2 = /bin/sh config(tmpwatch) = 2.9.12-2 psmisc * %check is not present. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * neither creates nor owns any directories. * 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/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