[Bug 727030] Review Request: ufw - uncomplicated firewall
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Aug 2 17:24:14 UTC 2011
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=727030
Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jussi.lehtola at iki.fi
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #9 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi> 2011-08-02 13:24:13 EDT ---
Some more comments:
Please use the %{version} macro for
%{python_sitelib}/ufw-0.30.1*
And, since it is an egg-info file, it's better to be a bit more explicit:
%{python_sitelib}/ufw-%{version}-py*.egg-info.
**
You are still missing ownership of
%{_datadir}/ufw/iptables/
Please combine
%{_datadir}/ufw/iptables/*.rules
%dir %{_datadir}/ufw/
to simply
%{_datadir}/ufw/
**
You are mixing styles:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS
Since this is a noarch package, you should drop CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" from
the build statement.
**
I'm also not sure why you want to break lines to exceedingly small length in
%{__python} setup.py install \
--skip-build \
--root %{buildroot}
but the very next line is very long.
**
By the way, there is a reason why firewall rules are not world readable. They
should be owned by root and installed as 600.
**
What does Patch0 do? Please add a comment about it in the spec file.
**
Note that you do not need to use the %{__python} macro, plain "python" will do
just fine.
**
I am wondering whether the use of a scrambled email address is allowed, but the
guideline is a bit unclear. I'll get this cleared up.
--
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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list