[Bug 668153] Review Request: openresolv - Management framework for resolv.conf

[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=668153

--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2011-01-13 08:47:31 EST ---
Yes, the current situation with the /etc/resolv.conf filling is a mess. Also
there are a lot of packages which doesn almost the same things, so adding
another one is not an issue.

I personally have no objections against openresolv, so (keeping in mind that it
neither conflicts with NetworkManager nor pretends to be installed by default)
here is my

REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

- rpmlint is NOT silent
work ~: rpmlint Desktop/openresolv-3.4.1-1.fc15.*
openresolv.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) resolv -> resolve, resole,
resold
openresolv.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resolv -> resolve,
resole, resold

^^^ False positive.

openresolv.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/resolvconf.8.gz
3375: bad character definition
openresolv.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/resolvconf.8.gz
3379: warning: macro `\}' not defined
openresolv.noarch: W: manual-page-warning
/usr/share/man/man5/resolvconf.conf.5.gz 3375: bad character definition
openresolv.noarch: W: manual-page-warning
/usr/share/man/man5/resolvconf.conf.5.gz 3379: warning: macro `\}' not defined

^^^ I failed to find what caused this message, but I'm suspection that it is
triggered by configuration snippets, containing curly brackets. I'm not sure
whether it's a issue or not.

openresolv.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) resolv -> resolve, resole,
resold
openresolv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resolv -> resolve,
resole, resold
openresolv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dnsmasq -> dismast,
kinsman, desman
openresolv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resolvconf ->
resolvable, resolved, resolve

^^^ False positive.

openresolv.src: W: strange-permission openresolv-3.4.1.tar.bz2 0755L
openresolv.src: W: strange-permission openresolv-service-status-quiet.patch
0755L
openresolv.src: W: strange-permission openresolv.spec 0755L

^^^ This should be fixed as well (easyfix).

2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings.
work ~: 


+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (BSD).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. Koji scratchbuild for F-15:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2718940

+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.

- The package MUST own all directories that it creates. Please, mark explicitly
%{_libexecdir}/resolvconf as %dir in the %files section.

+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.

+/- Permissions on files are set properly. Just drop executable permissions
from original sources (spec-file, patch and tarball).

0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on
systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

Almost finished. Please, address issues, noted above, and I'll continue.

-- 
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.