Spec URL: http://www.takekawa.tk/packages/rhel5/SRPMS/logsurfer+.spec SRPM URL: http://www.takekawa.tk/packages/rhel5/SRPMS/logsurfer+-1.7-1.el5.src.rpm Description: Logsurfer is a program for monitoring system logs in real-time, and reporting on the occurrence of events. It is similar to the well-known swatch program on which it is based, but offers a number of advanced features which swatch does not support. Hello. This is my first package here. So I'm very happy if I find a package sponsor. Thank you for your time.
Setting FE-NEEDSPONSOR since you need a sponsor.
All URLs are dead now. Marking this as not ready for review; please clear the Whiteboard above if providing a package that can be reviewed.
Now it can be reviewd.
The next question is why this is marked as an EPEL package. With very specific exceptions (such as things which simply cannot work in Fedora), all EPEL packages must be maintained in at least the development branch of Fedora and will automatically become part of the next Fedora release.
Independent of comment 4, some issues: * The src.rpm is from August 2011. It has not been touched since then, and apparently, many months have passed without trying to bring it into shape with the help of the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines * At least the first "MUST" item from the Review Guidelines (which are not just for reviewers, because every packager ought to be familiar with them) should have been processed: | MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build | produces. The output should be posted in the review. It finds a few issues. Hint. ;) > BuildRequires: glibc >= 2.5-12, glibc-devel >= 2.5-12 glibc-devel already requires glibc. With full version-release even. 2.5-12 is the original package from RHEL5, so even for Fedora EPEL 5, specifying >= 2.5-12 is superfluous. > Requires: glibc >= 2.5-12 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires > URL: http://www.crypt.gen.nz/logsurfer/ Hmmm, that's a surprise. :-( Nothing mandates that you would need to push many updates to this ticket, *but* there has been an 1.8 release on Sep 5th 2011, including a fix for a double-free. That would have been a great reason for an update and to demonstrate that you're willing to maintain this package. > umask 022 This is the default, isn't it? > %configure \ > --with-etcdir=%{_sysconfdir} \ > --prefix=%{_prefix} \ > --exec-prefix=%{_exec_prefix} \ > --mandir=%{_mandir} See output of "rpm --eval %configure" to eliminate defaults. > install -m 755 src/logsurfer $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/ > install -m 644 man/*.1.* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man1/ > install -m 644 man/*.4.* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man4/ > install -m 644 %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir}/logsurfer/logsurfer.conf https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps > %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/logsurfer/logsurfer.conf https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
> %{_sysconfdir}/logsurfer/logsurfer.conf That doesn't match the build: gcc -c -DWARN_ROOT -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DDUMPFILE=\"/dev/null\" \ -DCONFFILE=\"/etc/logsurfer.conf\" -I.. -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic context.c
Second thought ... just a brief look … if I continued with reviewing the built rpms: > $ rpmls -p logsurfer+-1.7-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm |grep man > -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man1/logsurfer.1.in.gz > -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man4/logsurfer.conf.4.in.gz Uh? .in.gz? $ man logsurfer man: warning: /usr/share/man/man1/logsurfer.1.in.gz: ignoring bogus filename No manual entry for logsurfer And logsurfer.conf in section 4 instead of section 5?
Removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR from the closed review tickets.