Fedora Merge Review: distcache http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/distcache/ Initial Owner: jorton
Hi, I presume a merge review is the same as a normal review just a different starting point: Comments: 1) $ rpmlint distcache.spec distcache.spec:57: E: use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR Yes you should not install from the SOURCE_DIR but instead in %prep move things to unpacked directory. i.e. cp -p %{SOURCE1} . after your %setup. 2) The 3 patches have no comments or upstream bugs attached. 3) The useradd section in the %post could be a litte more complicated as recommended here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UsersAndGroups (It's odd its in the %post and not in the %pre, is it really not needed till then? It looks like it may be in the passwd file already though. 4) The two scripts in the .src.rpm should not be executable. 5) What about splitting to a client and server package? Is that sensible? 6) You could mark /etc/sysconfig/distcache as a %gfile
Ping? Steve
Ping
For me no response, removing myself. Steve
I'll give this a go.
- rpmlint checks return: distcache.spec:57: E: use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR 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. distcache.src: W: strange-permission dc_client.init 0775L A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. distcache.src: W: strange-permission dc_server.init 0775L A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. I'm willing to fix the above if you like. distcache.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/distcache-1.4.5/LICENSE The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. Minor. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license ( LGPLv2 ) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - 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 - SEE ABOVE - %clean ok - macro use consistent - SEE ABOVE - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files - post/postun ldconfig ok - devel requires base package n-v-r So it's really just the minor things from rpmlint, which I'll commit fixes for unless you object, so we can close this. Then there's the systemd migration, but there's already a BZ open for that. I can do that if you like.
This package is not used in the distro any more, I've retired it, sorry for your wasted time on the review.
Not at all, the review is closed, the time was not wasted. :)
This bug just popped out when I searched for packages under review but this looks like this package was retired already. Dropping the flag fedora-review?