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: coda - Coda distributed file system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446653 rjones@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From rjones@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-05-16 04:42 EST ------- + rpmlint output coda-client.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/venus - This is the Coda cache manager, and I'm assuming that it doesn't listen on any network ports, so is safe to run by default. coda-client.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name venus - rpmlint is complaining that the script is called 'venus' but the package is called 'coda-client'. There doesn't seem to be anything in the guidelines which mandates that they be given the same name. coda-vcodacon.x86_64: W: no-documentation + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora GPLv2 + license matches the actual package license + %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm e80184573ed83cdf20d74a0e5861b24d + package successfully builds on at least one architecture x86-64 n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires list all build dependencies Although I didn't get to verify this by building it in Koji. n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun + does not use Prefix: /usr + package owns all directories it creates + no duplicate files in %files + %defattr line + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + files marked %doc should not affect package n/a header files should be in -devel n/a static libraries should be in -static n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc. + filenames must be valid UTF-8 Optional: n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available - reviewer should build the package in mock - the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures - review should test the package functions as described + scriptlets should be sane n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel n/a shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin ============= This package looks fine. Obviously it depends on 3 other reviews being approved first before it can go into CVS. APPROVED. -- 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