[Bug 738153] Review Request: ipset - Manage Linux IP sets

[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=738153

Pierre-YvesChibon <pingou at pingoured.fr> changed:

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

--- Comment #2 from Pierre-YvesChibon <pingou at pingoured.fr> 2011-09-15 04:40:30 EDT ---
[X] rpmlint must be run on every package.
    ipset.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iptables -> stables,
tables
    ipset.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rulesets -> rule sets,
rule-sets, runlets
    ipset.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iptables -> stables,
tables
    ipset.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rulesets -> rule
sets, rule-sets, runlets
    4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
These can be safely ignored.

[X] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.

[X] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
      %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.

[X] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.

[X] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
      Licensing Guidelines.

[X] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
   License is GPLv2 for most files, except:
        - one file on the kernel folder which is under Public Domain 
        - the file ax_cflags_gcc_option.m4 in the m4 folder which is 
        under GPLv3+ 
        - the file ipset.8 on the src folder which is GPLv2+
    GPLv2 is thus the most restrictive license and the GPLv3+ from the m4
    file can be ignored as explained in the said file.

[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 must be included in %doc.

[X] The spec file must be written in American English.

[X] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.

[X] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
      provided in the spec URL.
    source from the src.rpm: 781d5ad6a9e4d5bf6f8ccad3dfee8a578ed06c2a 
ipset-6.9.1.tar.bz2
    upstream source:         781d5ad6a9e4d5bf6f8ccad3dfee8a578ed06c2a 
~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/ipset-6.9.1.tar.bz2

[X] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
     least one primary architecture.
    Build properly under 2.6.40.3-0.fc15.x86_64
    Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3352759

[NA] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
      architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
      ExcludeArch.

[X] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
     inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.

[NA] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
      %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.

[X] 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.

[X] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.

[NA] 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.

[NA] A 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.

[X] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
      %files listings. 

[X] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
     executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
     %defattr(...) line.

[!] Each package must consistently use macros.
        make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
        find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -exec rm -f '{}' \;
    One of the two has to be changed

[X] The package must contain code, or permissable content.

[NA] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.

[!] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
     of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
     properly if it is not present.
    I believe it could be interesting to include the ChangeLog file as %doc.

[X] Header files must be in a -devel package.

[NA] Static libraries must be in a -static package.

[X] 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.

[X] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
      package using a fully versioned dependency: 
        non-noarch: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}.
        noarch: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

[X] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
      in the spec if they are built.

[NA] 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.

[X] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
      packages.

[X] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.


I am confident you can fix the macro used and add the ChangeLog files to the
%doc
section before importing the package into Fedora.

This package is therefore APPROVED.

-- 
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.