[Bug 225906] Merge Review: iptables

[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: Merge Review: iptables


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225906





------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2008-04-15 22:04 EST -------
Sorry for the delay here. Looking much better now:


OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
See below - License
See below - License field in spec matches
See below - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
90cfa8a554a29b0b859a625e701af2a7  iptables-1.4.0.tar.bz2
90cfa8a554a29b0b859a625e701af2a7  iptables-1.4.0.tar.bz2.orig
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.

OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
See below - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
See below - .so files in -devel subpackage.
OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
See below - No rpmlint output.
OK - final provides and requires are sane:

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should function as described.
OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version

Issues:

1. You have the License as GPLv2.
I see a mix in the source files of: GPL, GPLv2, GPLv2+, GPLv2 or GPLv3.
I think this results in: GPL+ for the license?

2. Any reason the package makes a static lib instead of a shared lib?
Does anything use iptables-devel? Might be nice to remove the .a and
make a shared lib instead.

3. rpmlint says:

iptables.src: W: strange-permission iptables.init 0755
iptables.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/sysconfig/iptables-config 0600
iptables.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/iptables
iptables.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/iptables
iptables-ipv6.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/sysconfig/ip6tables-config 0600
iptables-ipv6.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/ip6tables
iptables-ipv6.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name ip6tables

All look ignorable.

So, items 1 and 2 look to be the last issues to address... thoughts?

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