Bug 226405 - Merge Review: selinux-doc
Merge Review: selinux-doc
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Garrett Holmstrom
Fedora Package Reviews List
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-01-31 15:57 EST by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2010-11-17 14:43 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-11-17 14:43:11 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)
Review for F14 package selinux-doc-1.26-5 (8.96 KB, text/plain)
2010-11-16 16:31 EST, Garrett Holmstrom
no flags Details

  None (edit)
Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 15:57:18 EST
Fedora Merge Review: selinux-doc

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/selinux-doc/
Initial Owner: dwalsh@redhat.com
Comment 1 Garrett Holmstrom 2010-11-16 16:31:02 EST
Most of this package's problems simply arise from its age.  Upstream seems to be dead; is this package still relevant?  If it is no longer relevant maybe it would be better to just retire it.  I will attach a full review shortly, but I will also present the things that need to be fixed here.

- License files included in package %docs or not included in upstream source
- License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed

Just fix these with "%doc LICENSE".

- Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues
  Upstream MD5:  ???
  Your MD5:      5836fbb58dbd20586415d7f4baa0b55b  selinux-doc-1.26.tgz

Is upstream dead?  rpmlint and I get 404s from the URI in the spec file, and I failed to find a new upstream.

- Relocatability is justified

Does "Prefix: %{_prefix}" need to be there for some reason?  I would drop it, but if it is important to the package then the spec file should say why.

- Has dist tag

This is not a blocker, but adding a dist tag wouldn't be a bad idea to get this package in line with most of the others.

- Correct BuildRoot tag on < F10/EL6
- Correct %clean section on < F13/EL6

Since this package is only building on F12 and up you can dump both the BuildRoot tag and the %clean section if you want.  This also isn't required, though the buildroot given in the spec file is somewhat unusual.

- Text files encoded in ASCII or UTF-8
  README.HIERARCHY contains non-ISO extended-ASCII characters

Perhaps the file's encoding could be converted?

- File timestamps preserved by file ops

This isn't mandatory, but would you mind adding -p switches to cp commands?

One other thing that seemed off to me is the Group field.  Shouldn't it be "Documentation"?
Comment 2 Garrett Holmstrom 2010-11-16 16:31:57 EST
Created attachment 460934 [details]
Review for F14 package selinux-doc-1.26-5
Comment 3 Daniel Walsh 2010-11-17 11:14:14 EST
I have no problem dropping this package.  I think it is old and useless.
Comment 4 Garrett Holmstrom 2010-11-17 13:53:10 EST
Sounds good.  I don't have the superpowers to retire it myself, so I will just wait until you get a chance to do so before closing this bug.
Comment 5 Daniel Walsh 2010-11-17 14:14:49 EST
Sure, could you tell me how I go about doing this?
Comment 6 Jason Tibbitts 2010-11-17 14:22:47 EST
I retired the package for you in rawhide.  I assume you'll want to leave it around for the released Fedora branches.
Comment 7 Garrett Holmstrom 2010-11-17 14:43:11 EST
Sounds reasonable.  I'll close out this bug, then.

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