Spec URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/ap-utils.spec SRPM URL: http://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/ap-utils-1.5-1.fc9.src.rpm Project URL: http://ap-utils.polesye.net/ Description: Wireless Access Point Utilities for Unix - it's a set of utilities to configure and monitor Wireless Access Points under Unix using SNMP and tftp protocol. * ap-config - to config and get stats from Atmel-MIB based APs and devices that support IEEE 802.11 MIB and NWN DOT11EXT MIB * ap-gl - to config and get stats from Atmel-MIB based APs with 1.4k.2 firmware * ap-tftp - command line utility to upgrade AP firmare over tftp * ap-auth - command line utility to work with mac auth * ap-mrtg - to get stat from AP and return it in MRTG parsable format * ap-rrd - to get stat from AP and save it into RRD database * ap-trapd - to receive, parse, and log trap messages from AP Koji scratch builds: F9: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=914639 F10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=914644 rpmlint output: [fab@laptop024 i386]$ rpmlint ap-* ap-utils.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/ap-config 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. There is nothing for a devel package. [fab@laptop024 SRPMS]$ rpmlint ap-* 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Hi! I promised to make yet another review... Summary: OK besides some missing document files. A question mark on all the compiler warnigs when building, though. MUST stuff: rpmlint must be run on every package... - OK (No errors or warnings on srpm or spec file.) The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . - OK The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, - OK The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . - OK. The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license... - OK The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. - OK (some files have GPLv+ notices, but GPLv2 is the common denominator). The text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc - OK The spec file for the package MUST be legible. - OK The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source - OK (ebdb2a03302648c939ac965617de2889) The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms. - OK, on my Fedora 9/X86_64 box. Lots of compiler warnings " warning: pointer targets in assignment differ in signedness" while building." for constructs with a short and a literal #define int. Seems acceptable to me. (Upstream report?) All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires - OK (since mock is OK, see below) The spec file MUST handle locales properly. - OK Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files - NA If the package is designed to be relocatable... - NA A package must own all directories that it creates - NOK. The %doc section lists Documentation/*.html Documentation/FAQ but these are not present at all in the generated RPM. A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. - OK Permissions on files must be set properly - OK Each package must have a %clean section, rm -rf %{buildroot} - OK Each package must consistently use macros... - OK The package must contain code, or permissable content. - OK Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage - TBD (Havn't seen those HTML files yet). If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present - OK Header files must be in a -devel package. - NA Static libraries must be in a -static package. - NA Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must... - NA If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1 - NA If a package contains library files with a suffix... - NA devel packages must require the base package using... - NA Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives - OK Packages containing GUI applications... - NA (ncurses apps are not considered being graphical) Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages - OK At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} - OK All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. - OK SHOULD - The upstream license file (GPLv2) is present. - Localized descriptions are not available what I can see. - Builds OK in mock, on a Fedora-9/x86_64 configuration - There are no scriptlets. - All apps works to the point of a help message or an initial ncurses screen. - There are no subpackages, pkgconfig .pc file or file deps.
Thanks for the review. I will fix the open issues in the next days.
(In reply to comment #1) > The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms. > - OK, on my Fedora 9/X86_64 box. Lots of compiler warnings " warning: > pointer targets in assignment differ in signedness" while building." > for constructs with a short and a literal #define int. > Seems acceptable to me. (Upstream report?) I have seen those warning but I don't know to fix them. I sent a message to their mailing list. Waiting for an answer. > A package must own all directories that it creates > - NOK. The %doc section lists Documentation/*.html Documentation/FAQ > but these are not present at all in the generated RPM. [fab@laptop024 i386]$ rpmls ap-utils-1.5-1.fc9.i386.rpm -rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/ap-auth -rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/ap-config -rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/ap-gl -rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/ap-mrtg -rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/ap-rrd -rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/ap-tftp -rwxr-xr-x /usr/sbin/ap-trapd drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5 -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/ABOUT-NLS -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/AUTHORS -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/COPYING -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/ChangeLog -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/FAQ <--- -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/NEWS -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/Ovislink-HOWTO.html <--- -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/README -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/THANKS -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/ap-utils-1.5/TODO -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES/ap-utils.mo -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/locale/nl/LC_MESSAGES/ap-utils.mo -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/locale/pl/LC_MESSAGES/ap-utils.mo -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/locale/ro/LC_MESSAGES/ap-utils.mo -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/locale/tr/LC_MESSAGES/ap-utils.mo -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/locale/uk/LC_MESSAGES/ap-utils.mo -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man8/ap-auth.8.gz -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man8/ap-config.8.gz -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man8/ap-gl.8.gz -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man8/ap-mrtg.8.gz -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man8/ap-tftp.8.gz -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man8/ap-trapd.8.gz > Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage > - TBD (Havn't seen those HTML files yet). see above. It's only one html file.
No answer about the compiler warnings. The upstream project seems to be inactive. I will leave the spec file and the SRPM in place for a while.