[Bug 209082] Review Request: scanbuttond - Scanner Button tools to SANE

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: scanbuttond - Scanner Button tools to SANE


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209082





------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com  2006-10-04 02:02 EST -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> Taking ownership of this bug, blocking FE-REVIEW.
thanks.

> 
> Not doing a review yet; let's fix a couple bugs first.
> 
> First set of errors: chmod those files to 644 before generating your SRPM.  They
> don't need to be executable before the build process puts them into
> %{buildroot}.  That's what rpmlint is complaining about.
Done.

> 
> The second set of errors stems from the fact that you installed the initscript
> as /etc/rc.d/init.d/scannerbuttond/scannerbuttond, not
> /etc/rc.d/init.d/scannerbuttond -- you created the directory
> %{buildroot}%{_initrddir}/scannerbuttond when you should have created
> %{buildroot}%{_initrddir} .  Easy fix.  That allows rpmlint to run successfully
> on the main package, albeit with output:
> 
> E: scanbuttond incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/scannerbuttond scanbuttond
> E: scanbuttond incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/scannerbuttond scanbuttond
> E: scanbuttond incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/scannerbuttond scanbuttond
> W: scanbuttond incoherent-init-script-name scannerbuttond
> 
> The first three have to do with a mismatch between your initscript's name
> (scannerbuttond) and the lock file in /var/lock/subsys/ (scanbuttond).  The last
> one has to do with a similar mismatch between the package name and the
> initscript.  Is there a particular reason you'd like the initscript to be named
> scannerbuttond when every other reference says scanbuttond?  If so, fix the
> initscript to use the right lockfile name (and I guess the warning isn't a
> blocker).  If not, change the initscript name and all the errors go away.
ok.

> 
> I hacked together a fixed spec, which you can peruse here:
> 
> http://beer.tclug.org/fedora-extras/misc/scanbuttond.spec
> 
> In addition to using that spec, I chmod'd Source1-3 644 and renamed
> scannerbuttond to scanbuttond.init for clarity.
Thanks for solving rpmlint errors.

> 
> On another (minor) stylistic note, I suspect, judging by the nature in which
> they get installed, that Source2 & Source3 could possibly be formed as a patch
> instead.
  I also thought same first. But then i decided to have more flexibility to end
user in terms of let user write own buttonpressed.sh script and rebuild binary
RPM. Also he can install my provided script and later on installing binary rpm
he can change that script.
  Need your suggestions whether to create a patch or let package as it is now.

> 
> Yep.  Shaves a couple lines off your spec, and a measly ~500 bytes off.  No huge
> deal.  I won't consider your method to be a blocker, by any means.
> 
> I'll do a more thorough review once you remedy the actual problems.

here is updated package 
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/scanbuttond/scanbuttond.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/scanbuttond/scanbuttond-0.2.3-3.src.rpm

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.