Spec URL: http://www.kuehnel.org/chrootuid.spec SRPM URL: http://www.kuehnel.org/chrootuid-1.3-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Chrootuid makes it easy to run a network service at low privilege level and with restricted file system access. At Eindhoven University we use this program to run the gopher and www (world-wide web) network daemons in a minimal environment: the daemons have access only to their own directory tree, and run under a low-privileged userid. The arrangement greatly reduces the impact of possible loopholes in daemon software.
$ rpmlint chrootuid.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint chrootuid-1.3-1.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint chrootuid-1.3-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm chrootuid-debuginfo-1.3-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm chrootuid-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. MUSTs ----- OK: packaged is named according to the package naming guidelines OK: specfile name matches %{name}.spec OK: package seems to meet packaging guidelines OK: license in specfile matches actual license and meets licensing guidelines NOT OK: license file is included in %doc OK: specfile is written in AE OK: specfile is legible OK: sourcefile in the package is the same as provided in the mentioned source md5sum fits OK: package compiles successfully N/A: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires there are no build dependencies N/A: package handles locales properly there are no locales installed with this package N/A: call ldconfig in %post and %postun there is no binary installed with this package OK: package is not designed to be relocatable OK: package owns directorys it creates OK: does not list a file more than once in the %files listing OK: %files section includes %defattr and permissions are set properly OK: %clean section is there and contains rm -rf %{buildroot} OK: macros are consistently used OK: package contains code N/A: subpackage for large documentation files there are no large documentation files OK: program runs properly without files listed in %doc N/A: header files are in a -devel package there are no header files N/A: static libraries are in a -static package there are no static libs N/A: require pkgconfig if package contains a pkgconfig(.pc) there is no pkgconfig file N/A: put .so-files into -devel package if there are library files with suffix there is no library with suffix, in fact there isn't any library N/A: devel package includes fully versioned dependency for the base package there is no devel package N/A: any libtool archives are removed there are no libtool archives N/A: contains desktop file if it is a GUI application this is a commandline application OK: package does not own any files or directories owned by other packages OK: buildroot is removed at beginning of %install N/A: filenames are encoded in UTF-8 not necessary since there are no non-ASCII filenames SHOULD ------ N/A: non-English translations for description and summary there are no other languages supported by this package, in fact it does not provide any localization. I assume localizations are not needed for this package. OK: package builds in mock OK: package builds into binary rpms for all supported architectures N/A: program runs I did not test myself if the program works as it should N/A: subpackages contain fully versioned dependency for the base package there are no subpackages N/A: pkgconfig file is placed in a devel package there is no pkgconfig file N/A: require package providing a file instead of the file itself no files outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin are required - The summary should be short and pregant, no whole sentence - the description could be a bit more general, the 'we use this'-style is definitely not the best. You could take the description at the top in file chrootuid.c for example, this seems to be fine - The license file is missing in the %files-section - also a license file named COPYING would be nicer, a license hint in the source file itself would be nice too, you may want to contact upstream regarding this issues - If there are no requires, remove the Requires and BuildRequires completely, not just comment them out. - the CFLAGS parameter is missing in %build-section, when you add this, this should also fix the rpmlint error for the debuginfo package - Please use the install command in the %install-section instead of cp, at least add the -p to preserve timestamps - Please gzip the manpage (you may also want to let upstream know about this) - it is not neccessary to tag the manpage as %doc since RPM detects this automatically, but it is also ok if you do so - I would recommend you to use %{version} in Source0 and in the %prep-section (e.g. %{name}%{version}), this would make maintenance work a bit easier
Ping? Any progress here? Or we can close this review?
Stalled Review. Closing per: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews If you ever want to continue with this review, please reopen or submit new review.