Bug 863145 (listadmin)

Koji build success: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4559331

$ rpmlint -i -v *
listadmin.noarch: I: checking
listadmin.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cron -> corn, con, crone
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

listadmin.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag
There is no %changelog tag in your spec file. To insert it, just insert a
'%changelog' in your spec file and rebuild it.

listadmin.noarch: I: checking-url http://heim.ifi.uio.no/kjetilho/hacks/#listadmin (timeout 10 seconds)
listadmin.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/listadmin.1.gz 214: warning: numeric expression expected (got `[')
This man page may contain problems that can cause it not to be formatted as
intended.

listadmin.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/listadmin.1.gz 217: warning: numeric expression expected (got `[')
This man page may contain problems that can cause it not to be formatted as
intended.

listadmin.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/listadmin.1.gz 219: warning: numeric expression expected (got `[')
This man page may contain problems that can cause it not to be formatted as
intended.

listadmin.noarch: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/listadmin.1.gz 222: warning: numeric expression expected (got `a')
This man page may contain problems that can cause it not to be formatted as
intended.

listadmin.src: I: checking
listadmin.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cron -> corn, con, crone
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

listadmin.src: E: no-changelogname-tag
There is no %changelog tag in your spec file. To insert it, just insert a
'%changelog' in your spec file and rebuild it.

listadmin.src: I: checking-url http://heim.ifi.uio.no/kjetilho/hacks/#listadmin (timeout 10 seconds)
listadmin.src: W: invalid-url Source0: listadmin-2.40.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.

listadmin.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: listadmin-2.40.tar.gz
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.

2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings.



Besides the warnings and errors from rpmlint, some more issues:

Perl is not needed as an explicit requirement. RPM found the following dependencies automatically:

/usr/bin/perl  
perl  
perl(Data::Dumper)  
perl(Encode)  
perl(English)  
perl(Getopt::Long)  
perl(HTML::TokeParser)  
perl(I18N::Langinfo)  
perl(LWP::UserAgent)  
perl(MIME::Base64)  
perl(MIME::QuotedPrint)  
perl(Term::ReadLine)  
perl(Text::Reform)  
perl(strict)

The initial cleaning of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install is obsolete, unless you want to provide your package for EPEL 5. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Distribution_specific_guidelines.

The man page is not to be considered as part of %doc. If there are no docs, just omit the %doc macro. Moreover, replace the man page extension by * because the compression format could change in the future.

Ping...?

> %build
> make %{?_smp_mflags}

build.log output says:

+ cd listadmin-2.40
+ make -j2
Nothing needs to be done
+ exit 0

Not a big issue, but it's possible to leave the %build section empty. You could even delete the %build section completely.

If you want to keep running "make" because there is a Makefile, the invocation should change the default PREFIX=/usr/local to be in sync with the %install section. "make PREFIX=/usr", else it could happen that the wrong PREFIX would enter built files, e.g. via substitutions (or compilation for other packages in general).


> %doc %{_mandir}/man1/listadmin.1.gz

As in comment 2, files below %{_mandir} are marked as %doc automatically. It's not necessary to use %doc here explicitly.

(In reply to comment #4)

> > %doc %{_mandir}/man1/listadmin.1.gz
> 
> As in comment 2, files below %{_mandir} are marked as %doc automatically.
> It's not necessary to use %doc here explicitly.

Also, and this is a major nitpick, you shouldn't specify ".gz" here, as the compression used for manpages may change in the future. In addition, it increases the portability of the spec, as other rpm-based distros use other compression algorithms. I believe e.g. SUSE uses bzip2. This should do:

%{_mandir}/man1/listadmin.1*

True.

I've pointed out something like that many times before, but have nearly given up doing so unless I assign a full review to myself. There are packagers who reintroduce *.gz and similar wildcards in existing packages and in new package submissions, because they don't care until the compression changes actually or until the guidelines make it a MUST item. You can also meet some who refuse to
use  listadmin.1*  because it would include uncompressed *and* compressed files at the same time. They would then accept  listadmin.1.*  even if only reluctantly. ;)

Though, I wouldn't call it "a major nitpick", since the compression technique hasn't changed for years. It could be, however, that someone (downstream or locally) reconfigures it, and to make the spec file more versatile (and future-proof) is added value.

Hello,

Jakub Wilk reported a temporary file issue in listadmin:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=740891

Could this be fixed (I don't believe there is an upstream fix yet) before the listadmin package is released into Fedora?

Cheers,

--
Murray McAllister / Red Hat Security Response Team

amigadave's scratch build of listadmin-2.40-1.fc24.src.rpm for f24 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11945268

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.