[Bug 225697] New: Merge Review: distcache

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225697

Summary: Merge Review: distcache
           Product: Fedora Extras
           Version: devel
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: normal
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]

Fedora Merge Review: distcache

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/distcache/
Initial Owner: [e-mail]

[Bug 225697] Merge Review: distcache

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=225697

Steve Traylen  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]

[Bug 225697] Merge Review: distcache

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=225697

Steve Traylen  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Steve Traylen   2009-10-01 14:56:15 EDT ---
Hi,

I presume a merge review is the same as a normal review just
a different starting point:

Comments:

1) $ rpmlint distcache.spec 
distcache.spec:57: E: use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR

Yes you should not install from the SOURCE_DIR
but instead in %prep move things to unpacked
directory. i.e.
cp -p %{SOURCE1} .
after your %setup.

2) The 3 patches have no comments or upstream bugs attached.

3) The useradd section in the %post could be a litte more complicated as
   recommended here:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UsersAndGroups

(It's odd its in the %post and not in the %pre, is it really not needed
 till then? It looks like it may be in the passwd file already though.

4) The two scripts in the .src.rpm should not be executable.

5) What about splitting to a client and server package? Is that sensible?

6) You could mark /etc/sysconfig/distcache as a %gfile

[Bug 225697] Merge Review: distcache

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=225697

--- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen   2009-10-26 13:09:19 EDT ---
Ping?
Steve

[Bug 225697] Merge Review: distcache

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=225697

--- Comment #3 from Steve Traylen   2009-11-21 13:08:22 EDT ---
Ping

[Bug 225697] Merge Review: distcache

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=225697

Steve Traylen  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEW
                 CC|[e-mail]       |
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]       |[e-mail]
               Flag|fedora-review?              |

--- Comment #4 from Steve Traylen   2009-11-24 13:07:45 EDT ---
For me no response, removing myself.

Steve

[Bug 225697] Merge Review: distcache

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=225697

Jon Ciesla  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]

--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla  2012-04-03 10:05:46 EDT ---
I'll give this a go.

[Bug 225697] Merge Review: distcache

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=225697

Jon Ciesla  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |MODIFIED

--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla  2012-04-03 10:29:31 EDT ---
- rpmlint checks return:

distcache.spec:57: E: use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR
You use $RPM_SOURCE_DIR or %{_sourcedir} in your spec file. If you have to use
a directory for building, use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead.

distcache.src: W: strange-permission dc_client.init 0775L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.

distcache.src: W: strange-permission dc_server.init 0775L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.

I'm willing to fix the above if you like.

distcache.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/distcache-1.4.5/LICENSE
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled.  Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.

Minor.

- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license ( LGPLv2 ) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- 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 - SEE ABOVE
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent - SEE ABOVE
- 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

So it's really just the minor things from rpmlint, which I'll commit fixes for
unless you object, so we can close this.  Then there's the systemd migration,
but there's already a BZ open for that.  I can do that if you like.

[Bug 225697] Merge Review: distcache

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=225697

Jon Ciesla  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

[Bug 225697] Merge Review: distcache

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=225697

Joe Orton  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|MODIFIED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX
        Last Closed|                            |2012-04-10 03:56:00

--- Comment #7 from Joe Orton  2012-04-10 03:56:00 EDT ---
This package is not used in the distro any more, I've retired it, sorry for
your wasted time on the review.

[Bug 225697] Merge Review: distcache

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=225697

--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla  2012-04-10 07:50:49 EDT ---
Not at all, the review is closed, the time was not wasted. :)