[Bug 225666] Merge Review: crypto-utils

[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=225666

Jon Ciesla <limburgher at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |limburgher at gmail.com
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |limburgher at gmail.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher at gmail.com> 2012-04-06 09:06:02 EDT ---
Good:

- rpmlint checks return:

You use $RPM_SOURCE_DIR or %{_sourcedir} in your spec file. If you have to use
a directory for building, use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead.

Fix.

crypto-utils.spec:70: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build perl Makefile.PL
PREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr OPTIMIZE="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" INSTALLDIRS=vendor
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it may
break short circuit builds.

Fix.

crypto-utils.spec:377: W: macro-in-%changelog %files
Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to
the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that
affect the build.  Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in
possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally odd
entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted.  Avoid use of macros in
%changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'.

crypto-utils.spec:378: W: macro-in-%changelog %post
Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to
the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that
affect the build.  Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in
possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally odd
entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted.  Avoid use of macros in
%changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'.

Trival to fix.

crypto-utils.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: crypto-rand-1.3.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.

crypto-utils.src: W: no-url-tag
The URL tag is missing.

I see this has no real upstream, if this is something we originate it needs a
home on fedorahosted.

crypto-utils.src: W: strange-permission copying 0775L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.

crypto-utils.src: W: strange-permission pemutil.c 0775L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.

crypto-utils.src: W: strange-permission certext.c 0775L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.

crypto-utils.src: W: strange-permission secutil.h 0775L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.

crypto-utils.src: W: strange-permission keyutil.c 0775L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.

crypto-utils.src: W: strange-permission SECerrs.h 0775L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.

crypto-utils.src: W: strange-permission keyutil.h 0775L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.

crypto-utils.src: W: strange-permission secutil.c 0775L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.

Easy fixes.

- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license ( ) OK, text in %doc, matches source

Says MIT and GPLv2+, should be MIT and GPLv2+ and MPLv1.0

- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream

Impossible to determine.

- package compiles on devel (x86_64)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file 

I realize this package is ancient, but at least the few fixes are easy. Let me
know if you want me to commit anything.

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