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: cluster - RedHat Cluster Suite https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446390 ------- Additional Comments From tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-05-14 15:26 EST ------- Since you're replacing existing packages, please be sure to coordinate with their maintainers and properly End-Of-Life them, according to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/PackageEndOfLife Now, for the review: Good: - rpmlint checks return: cman.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/qdiskd cman.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/qdiskd cman.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/scsi_reserve cman.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/scsi_reserve cman.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/cman cman.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/cman rgmanager.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/rgmanager rgmanager.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/rgmanager gfs2-utils.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/gfs2 gfs2-utils.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/gfs2 gfs2-utils.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name gfs2 The incoherent-init-script-name one is safe to ignore, but you should consider whether all of those services should be enabled by default. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPLv2 and LGPLv2) OK, text in %doc, matches source You should correct the license tag for the rgmanager subpackage, as it is GPLv2+. Just add: License: GPLv2+ into the rgmanager subpackage definition. - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream (50ca482ccd4d2ee525a982c7cf08ac1100279251) - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean 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 base package n-v-r Aside from the License tag and the initscripts, everything is fine. Show me a fixed SRPM and I will approve and sponsor. Good work! -- 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