Spec URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/spampd.spec SRPM URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/spampd-2.30-2.src.rpm Description: Spampd is a program used within an e-mail delivery system to scan messages for possible Unsolicited Commercial E-mail (UCE, aka spam) content. It uses SpamAssassin (SA) to do the actual message scanning. Spampd acts as a transparent SMTP/LMTP proxy between two mail servers, and during the transaction it passes the mail through SA. If SA decides the mail could be spam, then spampd will ask SA to add some headers and a report to the message indicating it's spam and why.
Unofficial review as I am just a contributor. rpmlint gives two warnings on the src.rpm W: spampd strange-permission spampd.init 0744 W: spampd setup-not-quiet First one can be ignored, second one can be silenced adding -q to %setup rpmlint gives the following on the binary: E: spampd non-standard-uid /var/spool/spampd spampd E: spampd non-standard-gid /var/spool/spampd spampd E: spampd non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/spampd 0750 These can be safely ignored, the daemon runs as (newly created) user spamd W: spampd no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/spampd Can be ignored W: spampd incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/spampd $prog This one can be ignored, it is triggered by usage of the shell variable $prog for "spampd" in the script Not a blocker: BuildRoot is not the one recommended at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-f196e7b2477c2f5dd97ef64e8eacddfb517f1aa1 Good - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license is GPL, as mentioned on the upstream project page. However it is not included in the tar.gz, so upstream SHOULD be bugged to included it; for the time being, the license is (correctly) not included in %doc - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream (742c6f2cb75db54e59d044a8ee40445f spampd-2.30.tar.gz) - package compiles in mock on i386 and x86_64 architectures - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files and 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 - not a GUI so no need for .desktop file - not a devel package, no header / static libraries / .la / .pc files - no need for post/postun ldconfig - service is added to list of services but not started by default and also removed at uninstallation time - all pre/post scripts are sane I guess that someone with more power then me should APPROVE it, especially if you silence the %setup stage. As a personal question: why is the initial rpm release labeled -2 ?
ping
Isn't anyone interested in making a formal review of this package? :-( Why was it put as NEEDINFO? I don't see any needed info... silencing %setup is trivial an non-mandatory, and the BuildRoot is the one I use. For anything else, please comment...
It looked to me as a forgotten package, because there was no reaction, so I have put the status to NEEDINFO. And I will do the formal review. There is a small typo in the "pre" script - /dev/nulll vs. /dev/null In all other points I agree with Manuel, so with the typo fixed there are no blockers and the package is APPROVED
I'd love to have this on my mail server... The pacakge looks good, but I think you should fix line 55 ( s/nulll/null/ ) and add Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig Requires(preun): /sbin/chkconfig Requires(preun): /sbin/service as suggested in: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
Thanks! You can quickly check the latest package if you want, just in case : http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/spampd-2.30-3.fc6.src.rpm http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/spampd-2.30-3.fc6.noarch.rpm http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/spampd.spec Changes : - Fixed spampd.init mode to 755 - Fixed type in %pre (/dev/nulll) - Silenced the %setup step - Add scriplet chkconfig and service requirements Note that I've been running this in production since November... works great for me!
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: spampd New Branches: Owners: thias InitialCC: I have requested commit access to this package in order to fix bugs #1038388 and #678137. In addition, the patches will convert this package to systemd. Could you please add me to the list of committers. I have not had any reply from the maintainer or on the devel list. Thanks.
This is handled in pkgdb.
(In reply to Jon Ciesla from comment #8) > This is handled in pkgdb. I am aware of that. Fedora wiki says that it is OK to involve admin when the maintainer is unresponsive.
Also, I have already submitted commit requests in pkgdb.