Bug 225697 - Merge Review: distcache
Summary: Merge Review: distcache
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Gwyn Ciesla
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2007-01-31 18:27 UTC by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2012-06-15 16:27 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2012-04-10 07:56:00 UTC
Type: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 18:27:54 UTC
Fedora Merge Review: distcache

Initial Owner: jorton

Comment 1 Steve Traylen 2009-10-01 18:56:15 UTC

I presume a merge review is the same as a normal review just
a different starting point:


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:


(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

Comment 2 Steve Traylen 2009-10-26 17:09:19 UTC

Comment 3 Steve Traylen 2009-11-21 18:08:22 UTC

Comment 4 Steve Traylen 2009-11-24 18:07:45 UTC
For me no response, removing myself.


Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-04-03 14:05:46 UTC
I'll give this a go.

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-04-03 14:29:31 UTC
- 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.


- 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.

Comment 7 Joe Orton 2012-04-10 07:56:00 UTC
This package is not used in the distro any more, I've retired it, sorry for your wasted time on the review.

Comment 8 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-04-10 11:50:49 UTC
Not at all, the review is closed, the time was not wasted. :)

Comment 9 Parag AN(पराग) 2012-06-15 16:27:13 UTC
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?

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