[Bug 218018] Review Request: spampd - Transparent SMTP/LMTP proxy filter using spamassassin

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: spampd - Transparent SMTP/LMTP proxy filter using spamassassin


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218018





------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro  2006-12-01 13:36 EST -------
Unofficial review as I am just a contributor.

rpmlint gives two warnings on the src.rpm
   W: spampd strange-permission spampd.init 0744
   W: spampd setup-not-quiet
First one can be ignored, second one can be silenced adding -q to %setup

rpmlint gives the following on the binary:
E: spampd non-standard-uid /var/spool/spampd spampd
E: spampd non-standard-gid /var/spool/spampd spampd
E: spampd non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/spampd 0750
These can be safely ignored, the daemon runs as (newly created) user spamd

W: spampd no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/spampd
Can be ignored

W: spampd incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/spampd $prog
This one can be ignored, it is triggered by usage of the shell variable $prog
for "spampd" in the script

Not a blocker: BuildRoot is not the one recommended at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-f196e7b2477c2f5dd97ef64e8eacddfb517f1aa1


Good
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license is GPL, as mentioned on the upstream project page. However it is not
included in the tar.gz, so upstream SHOULD be bugged to included it; for the
time being, the license is (correctly) not included in %doc
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream (742c6f2cb75db54e59d044a8ee40445f  spampd-2.30.tar.gz)
- package compiles in mock on i386 and x86_64 architectures
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all files and directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- not a GUI so no need for .desktop file 
- not a devel package, no header / static libraries / .la / .pc files
- no need for post/postun ldconfig
- service is added to list of services but not started by default and also
removed at uninstallation time
- all pre/post scripts are sane

I guess that someone with more power then me should APPROVE it, especially if
you silence the %setup stage.

As a personal question: why is the initial rpm release labeled -2 ?


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.