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: iptables https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225906 ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2008-04-15 22:04 EST ------- Sorry for the delay here. Looking much better now: OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. See below - License See below - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 90cfa8a554a29b0b859a625e701af2a7 iptables-1.4.0.tar.bz2 90cfa8a554a29b0b859a625e701af2a7 iptables-1.4.0.tar.bz2.orig OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. See below - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun See below - .so files in -devel subpackage. OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. You have the License as GPLv2. I see a mix in the source files of: GPL, GPLv2, GPLv2+, GPLv2 or GPLv3. I think this results in: GPL+ for the license? 2. Any reason the package makes a static lib instead of a shared lib? Does anything use iptables-devel? Might be nice to remove the .a and make a shared lib instead. 3. rpmlint says: iptables.src: W: strange-permission iptables.init 0755 iptables.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/sysconfig/iptables-config 0600 iptables.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/iptables iptables.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/iptables iptables-ipv6.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/sysconfig/ip6tables-config 0600 iptables-ipv6.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/ip6tables iptables-ipv6.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name ip6tables All look ignorable. So, items 1 and 2 look to be the last issues to address... thoughts? -- 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