Spec URL: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/node.spec SRPM URL: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/node-0.3.2-2.fc9.src.rpm Description: This is a simple node frontend for Linux kernel AX.25, NETROM, ROSE and TCP. It's based on pms.c by Alan Cox (GW4PTS) but has been heavily modified since. It's probably not very well tested, not pretty, not very flexible and it is certainly not ready! However I think it's already somewhat usable Few notes: This package is not under active development. We need to provide this package because all AX25-HOWTO refers it, and I think it would help users. rpmlint is silent with a few exceptions: E: zero-length /var/ax25/node/loggedin this is an empty file node cannot create on it's own W: non-standard-dir-in-var ax25 /var/ax25 this is the standard location directory for ax25 applications. I think we should get an exception for that in rpmlint. Package does not have a standard configure script, here configure is just a bash script. so "sh configure" was put to inhibit rpmlint warning of not using %configure macro.
I have essentially no idea what this package does, but I went ahead and built it out of curiosity. I must say that given the description above, especially the "certainly not ready" part, I'd be uncomfortable about installing this even if a FAQ told me to. Could that bit perhaps be removed? Maybe take the "I think it's already somewhat usable" bit out as well, since "yum info" probably doesn't think anything about the packages usability. I don't see anything else in the distro that uses /var/ax25. Where is this standard for ax25 applications? Does this standard somehow trump the FHS? Seems to me that /var/lib/ax25 is more appropriate. I wouldn't worry about working around obviously bogus rpmlint complaints. rpmlint isn't necessarily the authority which must be quieted, and in the case of your configure script it should just be ignored (although what you've done works too).
> Could that bit perhaps be removed? Maybe take the "I think > it's already somewhat usable" bit out as well, since "yum info" probably doesn't > think anything about the packages usability. Corrected description. > I don't see anything else in the distro that uses /var/ax25. Where is this > standard for ax25 applications? Does this standard somehow trump the FHS? > Seems to me that /var/lib/ax25 is more appropriate. I've changed to localstate dir to /var/lib/ax25. New versions: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/node.spec http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/node-0.3.2-3.fc9.src.rpm
OK, finally getting back to this. The license should be GPLv2+ unless you can point out some place where it is limited to GPLv2 only. You must include the COPYING file as documentation. This package does not use the proper set of compiler flags. You must pass $RPM_OPT_FLAGS or %{optflags} to the compiler. You may need to patch parts of the package's build system in order to get this to work. * source files match upstream: 41879021150084e2eb923f414dbd1082af1d46e10313a52137c9ce1e7eff64d5 node-0.3.2.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field does not match the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. X license text included upstream but not included in the package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. X compiler flags are not correct. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: config(node) = 0.3.2-3.fc10 node = 0.3.2-3.fc10 = /bin/sh /sbin/service config(node) = 0.3.2-3.fc10 libax25.so.0()(64bit) libax25io.so.0()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) xinetd * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I have no idea how to go about testing this. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (xinetd restart). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files.
(In reply to comment #3) > X license field does not match the actual license. modified license > X license text included upstream but not included in the package. added COPYING > X compiler flags are not correct. added fedora's compiler flags .. bumped version new files are: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/node.spec http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/node-0.3.2-4.fc9.src.rpm
I'm back from vacation; sorry for not being able to take care of this sooner. Everything looks good to me now; APPROVED
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: node Short Description: Simple node front end, modelled after the node shells of TheNet and G8BPQ nodes Owners: lucilanga Branches: F-8 F-9 EL-5 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
cvs done.
node-0.3.2-4.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8
node-0.3.2-4.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9
node-0.3.2-4.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
node-0.3.2-4.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.