Bug 226405
| Summary: | Merge Review: selinux-doc | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> | ||||
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Garrett Holmstrom <gholms> | ||||
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> | ||||
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | medium | ||||||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | dwalsh, gholms | ||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
| Last Closed: | 2010-11-17 19:43:11 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
2007-01-31 20:57:18 UTC
Most of this package's problems simply arise from its age. Upstream seems to be dead; is this package still relevant? If it is no longer relevant maybe it would be better to just retire it. I will attach a full review shortly, but I will also present the things that need to be fixed here.
- License files included in package %docs or not included in upstream source
- License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed
Just fix these with "%doc LICENSE".
- Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues
Upstream MD5: ???
Your MD5: 5836fbb58dbd20586415d7f4baa0b55b selinux-doc-1.26.tgz
Is upstream dead? rpmlint and I get 404s from the URI in the spec file, and I failed to find a new upstream.
- Relocatability is justified
Does "Prefix: %{_prefix}" need to be there for some reason? I would drop it, but if it is important to the package then the spec file should say why.
- Has dist tag
This is not a blocker, but adding a dist tag wouldn't be a bad idea to get this package in line with most of the others.
- Correct BuildRoot tag on < F10/EL6
- Correct %clean section on < F13/EL6
Since this package is only building on F12 and up you can dump both the BuildRoot tag and the %clean section if you want. This also isn't required, though the buildroot given in the spec file is somewhat unusual.
- Text files encoded in ASCII or UTF-8
README.HIERARCHY contains non-ISO extended-ASCII characters
Perhaps the file's encoding could be converted?
- File timestamps preserved by file ops
This isn't mandatory, but would you mind adding -p switches to cp commands?
One other thing that seemed off to me is the Group field. Shouldn't it be "Documentation"?
Created attachment 460934 [details]
Review for F14 package selinux-doc-1.26-5
I have no problem dropping this package. I think it is old and useless. Sounds good. I don't have the superpowers to retire it myself, so I will just wait until you get a chance to do so before closing this bug. Sure, could you tell me how I go about doing this? I retired the package for you in rawhide. I assume you'll want to leave it around for the released Fedora branches. Sounds reasonable. I'll close out this bug, then. |