Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=443675 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-03 09:47:26 EDT --- Thanks for woke me up, Robert :) Let's summarize things * issue with registration may be ignored (however I still think that all sources, listed in Fedora's spec-files should be accessible w/o restrictions of any kind) * my first two remarks are cosmetic and you promised to change your spec acordingly * I age with you about %{_initrdir} issue - my last remark must be ignored About touch and chmod for log files - I don't think that there are considerably more effective techniques to create zero-length log-file if it does not exists than your approach (and MySQL maintainer's one, respectively). OK, assuming that you fix spec-file according to all suggestions, here is my REVIEW: - rpmlint is not silent: [petro@Sulaco noarch]$ rpmlint sip-redirect-0.1.2-1.noarch.rpm sip-redirect.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/sip-redirect sip sip-redirect.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/sip-redirect sip sip-redirect.noarch: E: non-root-user-log-file /var/log/sip-redirect sip sip-redirect.noarch: E: non-root-group-log-file /var/log/sip-redirect sip sip-redirect.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post chown sip-redirect.noarch: E: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/sip-redirect sip-redirect} 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings. [petro@Sulaco noarch]$ + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines . + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. - The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. I cannot verify it since I cannot dl files w/o registration. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture (ppc). + No extra build dependencies + The package doesn't create additional directories. + The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). + The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines . + The package contains code, or permissable content. + No large documentation files + Every file, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). + All filenames in the packages are valid UTF-8. Warnings and errors from rpmlint may be ignored in this case, so the package is 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review