[Bug 188542] Review Request: hylafax

[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: hylafax


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542





------- Additional Comments From faxguy at howardsilvan.com  2006-12-05 17:38 EST -------
> This is obviously not the same package, not the same release. It's not even
> the same version as the package you have submitted in comment #31.

The software development is moving much faster than progress on this review
request.  I apologize for giving you rpmlint output for an RPM that was more
conveniently at my disposal.  For your benefit, I have downloaded the SRPM given
in comment #31, rebuilt it on FC6, and here is the rpmlint output:

[root at dhcp031 i386]# rpmlint hylafax-5.0.0-1.i386.rpm
W: hylafax incoherent-version-in-changelog 5.0.0 5.0.0-1
E: hylafax invalid-soname /usr/lib/libfaxutil.so.5.0.0 libfaxutil.so
E: hylafax invalid-soname /usr/lib/libfaxserver.so.5.0.0 libfaxserver.so
W: hylafax devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libfaxserver.so
E: hylafax non-readable /var/spool/hylafax/etc/hosts.hfaxd 0600
E: hylafax executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.hourly/hylafax
E: hylafax script-without-shebang /usr/sbin/faxsetup.linux
E: hylafax executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.daily/hylafax
E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/archive 0700
W: hylafax devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libfaxutil.so
E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/doneq 0700
E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/sendq 0700
E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/tmp 0700
E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/docq 0700
W: hylafax non-conffile-in-etc /etc/hylafax/faxcover_example_sgi.ps
E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/pollq 0700
E: hylafax executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/hylafax
[root at dhcp031 i386]#

> I agree. I think the source should be named hylafax+<version>.tar.gz, too.

Apache distributes its webserver in a source repository named
httpd-2.2.3.tar.gz.  Following the suggestions here, we should petition them to
change their package name to something more specific to their version, like
"apache-httpd".  Apache's naming convention makes complete sense to me, and
undoubtedly I am not alone in this understanding as they have had it named that
way for a very long time.

Fedora uses the repository name as the source for the httpd package name.  Thus
Apache's webserver is found in a package named "httpd".  However, other
distributions of Apache's webserver are found in packages named differently,
such as "apache-httpd".  This also makes complete sense to me because it
provides the distribution a means to differentiate between different http
servers that it may provide.  I do not know if Fedora provides webservers other
than Apache's, but assuming it does not, then using the package name of "httpd"
for Fedora makes complete sense as well, since it is the only http server being
provided.

The upstream repository will remain named as it is.  As for the package name, it
matters not to me if it is called "hylafax" or "hylafax+".  However, my
suggestion would follow what I've said above about the Apache http server.  The
distinction of the "+" will mean very little to Fedora users (and in-fact may
make the package more-difficult to identify) unless there is more than one
HylaFAX package being distributed by Fedora (say, for example, separate
"hylafax+" and "hylafax.org" packages).

-- 
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.