Bug 225694 - Merge Review: dictd
Merge Review: dictd
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Lucian Langa
Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2007-01-31 13:27 EST by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2009-08-03 05:51 EDT (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2009-08-03 05:51:28 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
cooly: fedora‑review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 13:27:07 EST
Fedora Merge Review: dictd

Initial Owner: karsten@redhat.com
Comment 1 Karsten Hopp 2007-02-21 04:56:47 EST
dictd-1.9.15-9 has the most common review issues fixed
Comment 2 Lucian Langa 2009-01-10 15:30:14 EST
please use default %defattr:

You should use %postun scriptlet; without it, the daemon will not
restart itself after a package update.
Comment 3 Karsten Hopp 2009-01-22 10:38:02 EST
fixed in dictd-1.11.0-2
Comment 4 Lucian Langa 2009-01-23 13:52:23 EST
Thank you for the update.

I note you are not using %{?dist} tag, however this is not a blocker.

There is a test suite provided in the package, but it won't run correctly as
dictd drops privileges to user nobody and won't be able to create/append log
file _dictd.log in test/ directory. I'm not sure that's fixable.

Please consider using install -p for install to preserve timestamps of installed

OK  source files match upstream:
        1b316bf797ff239eb87110c18cd7d5d9  dictd-1.11.0.tar.gz
        d1883d09f65179a3b6aa16579cb5a7e9  libmaa-1.1.0.tar.gz
OK  package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK  specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
OK  summary is OK.
OK  description is OK.
OK  dist tag is not present.
OK  build root is OK.
OK  license field matches the actual license.
OK  license is open source-compatible.
OK  license text included in package.
OK  BuildRequires are proper.
OK  compiler flags are appropriate.
OK  %clean is present.
OK  package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
OK  package installs properly.
OK  debuginfo package looks complete.
OK  rpmlint is silent.
OK  final provides and requires are sane:
        config(dictd) = 1.11.0-2
        dictd = 1.11.0-2
        dictd(x86-64) = 1.11.0-2
        config(dictd) = 1.11.0-2
N/A %check is not present. Provided test suite won't correctly run
N/A no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
OK  owns the directories it creates.
OK  doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK  no duplicates in %files.
OK  file permissions are appropriate.
OK  scriptlets present look OK
OK  initscript looks OK.
OK  code, not content.
OK  documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
OK  %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK  no headers.
OK  no pkgconfig files.
OK  no static libraries.
OK  no libtool .la files.

Comment 5 Karsten Hopp 2009-01-28 08:43:13 EST
Thanks a lot for the review !
I've added the disttag as that one makes it much easier to reuse the spec file for different releases and I just forgot to add it.
Comment 6 Peter Lemenkov 2009-08-03 05:51:28 EDT
I think that we may close this ticket.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.