[Bug 226187] Merge Review: nc

[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=226187





--- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2010-01-06 16:49:16 EDT ---
OK, I checked out the current CVS and indeed it builds fine and rpmlint is
silent.

However, there are still a couple of issues:

There's still no documentation on actually recreating the CVS checkout.  I
don't know if the information I posted nearly three years ago in comment #8 is
still valid, but we really so need to get some information on precisely where
the source comes from.  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL

When a package accumulates so many patches, it is really important to keep
track of their upstream status. 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
At this point, given the number of patches with no information about their
upstream status and the lack of information on the upstream source, it begins
to seem as if Fedora is maintaining its own fork of nc, which I doubt is
something that we want to be doing.

Nothing seems to own /usr/share/nc; you should probably just add
"%{_datadir}/nc" to %files and remove the two lines referencing
%{_datadir}/nc/scripts.  But then there are a couple of other points:

If you expect that people will actually want to run those scripts, why not give
them sensible non-conflicting names and actually install them in the usual path
for executables?

If they aren't supposed to be run, why not keep them in %doc?

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