[Bug 446653] Review Request: coda - Coda distributed file system

[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: coda - Coda distributed file system


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446653


rjones at redhat.com changed:

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




------- Additional Comments From rjones at redhat.com  2008-05-16 04:42 EST -------
+ rpmlint output

coda-client.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/venus

 - This is the Coda cache manager, and I'm assuming that it
   doesn't listen on any network ports, so is safe to run by
   default.

coda-client.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name venus

 - rpmlint is complaining that the script is called 'venus' but
   the package is called 'coda-client'.  There doesn't seem to
   be anything in the guidelines which mandates that they be
   given the same name.

coda-vcodacon.x86_64: W: no-documentation

+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
  GPLv2
+ license matches the actual package license
+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
  e80184573ed83cdf20d74a0e5861b24d
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
  x86-64
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies

  Although I didn't get to verify this by building it in Koji.

n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
+ does not use Prefix: /usr
+ package owns all directories it creates
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8

Optional:

n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available
- reviewer should build the package in mock
- the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
- review should test the package functions as described
+ scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
n/a shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin

=============

This package looks fine.

Obviously it depends on 3 other reviews being approved first before
it can go into CVS.

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, or are watching someone who is.