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=226426 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla <limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-15 09:49:48 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > >spamassassin.src:72: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes perl-Mail-SpamAssassin > >The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all > >older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update > >problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it > >was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if > >possible. > > > >Fix. > > Well, the problem here is that upsteam uses that package name. > So, if someone installs the upstream rpms, then decides to upgrade > to the fedora one, without this they will get a confusing mix. ;( Then commenting this in the spec should be sufficient. > > >spamassassin.src:101: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build %{__perl} Makefile.PL > >DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/ SYSCONFDIR=%{_sysconfdir} INSTALLDIRS=vendor > >ENABLE_SSL=yes < /dev/null > >$RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it will > >break short circuiting. > > > >There may be a good reason for this. Is there? > > It's not clear to me where it is using the build root. It's setting DESTDIR to > it, but it shouldn't be using it. Will dig more, but ideas welcome. I'll peek at it. > >spamassassin.src: W: strange-permission spamassassin-helper.sh 0755 > >A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. > >Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. > > > >Fix, or document in spec. > > It's a shell script that runs and shows the exit code (spam/notspam). > I guess I can add a comment that it's expected to be executable. That'd be perfect. > > >rpmlint on RPMS: > > > >spamassassin.i386: E: incoherent-logrotate-file /etc/logrotate.d/sa-update > >Your logrotate file should be named /etc/logrotate.d/<package name>. > > > >Fix, if it won't be too catastrophic. > > Well, it's not spamassassin itself that logs anything, it's the daily > sa-update job that pulls updates to rules. I think it makes more sense > to leave it as sa-update since thats the command that generates the logs. Agreed, might want to comment in spec. > > >spamassassin.i386: E: executable-marked-as-config-file > >/etc/mail/spamassassin/spamassassin-helper.sh > >Executables must not be marked as config files because that may prevent > >upgrades from working correctly. If you need to be able to customize an > >executable, make it for example read a config file in /etc/sysconfig. > > > >???? > > Humm. Not sure why thats marked as config. No one should ever change it. > Sadly, thats generated the file that the make process generates. > It might need a patch or getting upstream to fix it. Hmm. > >spamassassin.i386: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag > >/etc/rc.d/init.d/spamassassin > >A configuration file is stored in your package without the noreplace flag. A > >way to resolve this is to put the following in your SPEC file: > >%config(noreplace) /etc/your_config_file_here > > Fixed above by making it not a config file. > > >spamassassin.i386: W: dangerous-command-in-%post cp > > This is so that updates with old config file options that are no longer > supported will get updated. I don't see any easy way around it. Neither do I. Comment in spec. > >spamassassin.i386: W: no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/spamassassin > >In your init script (/etc/rc.d/init.d/your_file), you don't have a 'reload' > >entry, which is necessary for good functionality. > > spamd doesn't have any functionality to do a reload without just restarting > as far as I know. In this instance, just make reload do what restart does. > >Otherwise, full review looks good, no other blockers. > > Ok. > > new spec: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/spamassassin.spec > diff against old: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/spamassassin.diff > scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=998690 > > Warren is going to look it over as well. I'll await his input. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review