[Bug 470354] Review Request: noip - A dynamic DNS update client

[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=470354


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-03-13 18:01:30 EDT ---
rpmlint says:
  noip.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/noip noip
  noip.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/run/noip noip
  noip.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/noip 0700
  noip.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /etc/no-ip2.conf noip
  noip.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/no-ip2.conf noip
  noip.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/noip 0700
  noip.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/no-ip2.conf 0600
All of these are fine.

  noip.x86_64: E: zero-length /etc/no-ip2.conf
Can this file accept any comments?  Is there any way to put any initial content
there?  It's not generally a good idea to ship empty but significant files.

  noip.x86_64: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/noip $prog
This is bogus; rpmlint doesn't understand when you put the service name in a
variable.

Unfortunately there's not much I can do besides verify that the client at least
does something; I don't use no-ip.com services.

A little bit of indenting might make the %pre script clearer; it looks like the
wiki sample of this got damaged somehow.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
   82b9bafab96a0c53b21aaef688bf70b3572e26217b5e2072bdb09da3c4a6f593  
   noip-duc-linux.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (none).
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
X rpmlint has a valid complaint.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   config(noip) = 2.1.9-2.fc11
   noip = 2.1.9-2.fc11
   noip(x86-64) = 2.1.9-2.fc11
  =
   /bin/sh
   chkconfig
   config(noip) = 2.1.9-2.fc11
   initscripts
   shadow-utils

* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* Init script looks OK.
* scriptlets are OK (user creation in %pre, initscript setup in %post and 
   %preun).
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

-- 
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.