[Bug 226484] Merge Review: telnet

Tue Mar 9 13:15:55 UTC 2010

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=226484

Ondrej Vasik <ovasik at redhat.com> changed:

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

--- Comment #4 from Ondrej Vasik <ovasik at redhat.com> 2010-03-09 08:15:48 EST ---
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review

[Reset at localhost devel]$ rpmlint telnet.spec telnet*.rpm i386/*.rpm
telnet.spec: W: invalid-url Source2: telnet-client.tar.gz
telnet.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) login -> loin, logic, lo gin
telnet.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Telnet
telnet.src: W: no-url-tag
telnet.src: W: invalid-url Source2: telnet-client.tar.gz
telnet-debuginfo.i386: W: no-url-tag
telnet-server.i386: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) login -> loin, logic, lo
gin
telnet-server.i386: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US logins -> losing,
loins, lo gins
telnet-server.i386: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xinetd -> dinette,
ninety, kinetic
telnet-server.i386: W: no-url-tag
telnet.i386: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) login -> loin, logic, lo gin
telnet.i386: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Telnet
telnet.i386: W: no-url-tag
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings.
[Reset at localhost devel]$ rpmlint --version
rpmlint version 0.94 Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Frederic Lepied, Mandriva

All W/E discussed previously, I'm ok with them.
Confirmed that URL is no longer available, could be probably
http://web.archive.org/web/20070819111735/www.hcs.harvard.edu/~dholland/computers/old-netkit.html

+ MUST: package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines

Name doesn't match upstream tarball(netkit-telnet), but it's done this way for
a
long time and for consistency I would say it is better to keep it as it is.
Same is done in other distros as well.

+ MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
+ MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
+ MUST: The package licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines
+ MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual
license
0 MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.

No such file in package.

+ MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
+ MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
+ MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task
>From sources:
$ md5sum netkit-telnet-0.17.tar.gz
d6beabaaf53fe6e382c42ce3faa05a36  netkit-telnet-0.17.tar.gz
>From upstream ftp:
$ md5sum netkit-telnet-0.17.tar.gz
d6beabaaf53fe6e382c42ce3faa05a36  netkit-telnet-0.17.tar.gz
= MATCHES
+ MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture
 - tested on i686, no problems
0 MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch
+ MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines
0 MUST: The spec file handles locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro
0 MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
0 MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
0 MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker
+ MUST: Package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
that directory
+ MUST: Package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings
+ MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Every %files section must
include a %defattr(...) line.
+ MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ MUST: Each package must consistently use macros
+ MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content
0 MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
+ MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application
0 MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package
0 MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package
0 MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
0 MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package
0 MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built
0 MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section
+ MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages
+ MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
+ MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8

The only questionable thing is that maybe it would be good to ship webarchive
URL and README file as %doc, not a blocker for me, though.

Package looks sane. Review+

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