[Bug 500713] Review Request: 389-ds-base - renamed from fedora-ds-base

[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=500713


Jochen Schmitt <jochen at herr-schmitt.de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |jochen at herr-schmitt.de
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




--- Comment #6 from Jochen Schmitt <jochen at herr-schmitt.de>  2009-05-25 12:04:43 EDT ---
Good:
+ Basename of the SPEC file matches with package name
+ Package name fullfill naming guidelines
+ URL tag shows on proper project home page
+ Could download upstream sources via spectool -g
+ Packaged sources matches with upstream
(md5sum: 5c14449d2960ddba89efc48269ba6f3b)
+ Package contains valid license tag
+ License tags state GPLv2 with exception as a valid OSS license
+ Consistently usage of rpm macros
+ Proper buildroot defintion
+ Buildroot will be cleaned on the beginning of %clean and %install
+ Package has several subpackges
+ Devel subpackage has proper Requires to main package
+ Package has proper Provides/Obsoletes statement for the 
  renaming processs
+ Package has a SMP enabled build
+ Build honour RPM_OPT_FLAGS
+ Local build works fine
+ There are no complaints from rpmlint about the source rpm
+ Debuginfo rpm contains source files
+ Scratch build on koji works fine
+ Files has proper files permissions
+ All package files are owned by the package
+ %files stanza contains no duplicates
+ No packaged file belongs to another package
+ %doc stanza is small, so we need no extran doc subpackage
+ Package has proper %changelog


Bad:
- Package doesn't contains verbatin copy of the license.
There is a text file which refer to the GPLv2 and a additional
files which described the exception to use the packaged software
together with non-GPLed software, but there is none verbatin copy
of the GPLv2
- Rpmlint has warning for the binary package
$ rpmlint 389-ds-base-1.2.1-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm
389-ds-base.x86_64: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/dirsrv
389-ds-base.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name dirsrv
- Rpmlint has warning for the devel subpackage:
$ rpmlint 389-ds-base-devel-1.2.1-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm
389-ds-base-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
- Please use %{_sysconfdir}/rc.d/init.d instead of %{_inittddir}


Your package is 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.