[Bug 691027] Review Request: n2n - A layer-two peer-to-peer virtual private network

Sat Mar 26 16:11:19 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=691027

Fabian Affolter <fabian at bernewireless.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |fabian at bernewireless.net

--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter <fabian at bernewireless.net> 2011-03-26 12:11:18 EDT ---
Package Review
==============

Package: 

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one
supported architecture
     Tested on: F14/x86_64
 [x] Rpmlint output:
     Source RPM:
     [fab at laptop023 SRPMS]$ rpmlint n2n-2.1.0-1.el6.src.rpm
     n2n.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US https -> HTTP, hatpins,
hotpots
     n2n.src: W: invalid-url Source0: n2n-2.1.0.tar.gz
     1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
     Binary RPM(s):
     [fab at laptop023 x86_64]$ rpmlint n2n*
     n2n.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US https -> HTTP,
hatpins, hotpots
     2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
 [x] Package is not relocatable
 [x] Buildroot is correct (if it's still used)
     master   : %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
     spec file: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license
     License type: GPLv3+
 [x] 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 is included in %doc

 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English
 [?] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL
     Upstream source: 6da99a853dd128ee3526139dde57e535  n2n-2.1.0.tar.gz
     Build source:    6f05cbc045978f5978ea5b8eaa129084  n2n-2.1.0.tar.gz
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [-] Architecture independent packages have: BuildArch: noarch
 [-] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.  %find_lang used for locales
 [!] %{optflags} or RPM_OPT_FLAGS are honoured
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required
 [x] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT (if it's still
used)
 [-] Package must own all directories that it creates
 [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly. %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every
%files section
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT (if it's still used)
 [-] Included tests passed successfully 
 [x] Package consistently uses macros
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content
 [x] Included filenames are in UTF-8

 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required
 [-] Header files (.h) in -devel subpackage, if present
 [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackage, if present
 [-] Static libraries (.a) in -static subpackage, if present
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
 [x] -debuginfo subpackage is present and looks complete
 [x] No pre-built binaries (.a, .so*, executable)

 [-] Package contains a properly installed .desktop file if it is a GUI
application
 [-] Follows desktop entry spec
 [-] Valid .desktop Name
 [-] Valid .desktop GenericName
 [-] Valid .desktop Categories
 [-] Valid .desktop StartupNotify
 [-] .desktop file installed with desktop-file-install in %install

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [!] Timestamps preserved with cp and install
 [x] Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags})
 [x] Latest version is packaged
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream
 [x] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported
architectures.
     Tested:  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2948473
 [x] Package functions as described
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct
 [-] File based requires are sane
 [x] Changelog in allowed format

- The source header claims that the license is GPLv3+.
- Please preserve the timestamps
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps
- Why not combine the man pages in the %files section? In the future you do not
need to take care about new man pages.

Please follow
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group

-- 
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.