[Bug 513307] Review Request: Netdisco - A web-based network management tool

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513307





--- Comment #2 from Silas Sewell <silas at sewell.ch>  2009-07-25 17:16:33 EDT ---
Package Review
==============

Package: netdisco

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one
supported architecture
     Tested on: F11/i386
 [X] Rpmlint output:
     Source RPM:
     [silas at fox rpmbuild]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-11-i386/result/*.rpm
     netdisco.src: W: strange-permission netdisco.init 0755
     netdisco.src: W: strange-permission netdisco_config 0755
     2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
 [x] Package is not relocatable
 [x] Buildroot is correct
     master   : %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
     spec file: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [?] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license
     License type: BSD
 [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc
 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL
     Upstream source: 24ff61ee909fcdb47eb837967dbb67be  netdisco-0.95.tar.gz
     Build source:    24ff61ee909fcdb47eb837967dbb67be  netdisco-0.95.tar.gz
     Upstream source: 35b656bdb8506f0b413c4abab44523e6 
netdisco-mibs-0.7.tar.gz
     Build source:    35b656bdb8506f0b413c4abab44523e6 
netdisco-mibs-0.7.tar.gz
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [x] Architecture independent packages have: BuildArch: noarch
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.  %find_lang used for locales
 [-] %{optflags} or RPM_OPT_FLAGS are honoured
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required
 [x] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files
 [!] Permissions on files are set properly. %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every
%files section
     Just change %defattr(-,root,root) to %defattr(-,root,root,-)
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
 [-] Included tests passed successfully 
 [x] Package consistently uses macros
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content
 [x] Included filenames are in UTF-8

 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required
 [-] Header files (.h) in -devel subpackage, if present
 [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackage, if present
 [-] Static libraries (.a) in -static subpackage, if present
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
 [-] -debuginfo subpackage is present and looks complete
 [x] No pre-built binaries (.a, .so*, executable)

 [-] Package contains a properly installed .desktop file if it is a GUI
application
 [-] Follows desktop entry spec
 [-] Valid .desktop Name
 [-] Valid .desktop GenericName
 [-] Valid .desktop Categories
 [-] Valid .desktop StartupNotify
 [-] .desktop file installed with desktop-file-install in %install

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [-] Timestamps preserved with cp and install
 [-] Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags})
 [x] Latest version is packaged
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream
 [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock
     Tested on: F11/i386
 [-] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported
architectures.
 [-] Package functions as described
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct
 [-] File based requires are sane
 [x] Changelog in allowed format

Notes:
 * You should change /usr/share/ to %_datadir in the %files section
 * Most of the explicit %attr aren't required in %files
 * Patches are suppose to have comments:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
   Although it might be easier just to change those patches to seds
 * I know nothing about the vendor mips packaged in netdisco-mips, I'm assuming
you know if they're allowed to be packaged in Fedora or not.

Fix the above issues and I'll approve the package.

-- 
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.