[Bug 220284] Review Request: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server

[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: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284


Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778                      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net  2006-12-20 14:18 EST -------
Full review:
o rpmlint output: OK

W: bcfg2 invalid-license BCFG Public License
E: bcfg2 non-readable /etc/bcfg2.conf 0600
W: bcfg2-client invalid-license BCFG Public License
E: bcfg2-client wrong-line-in-lsb-tag #                    installs
configuration files served by bcfg2-server
E: bcfg2-client wrong-line-in-lsb-tag #                    This is a client that
installs the server provided
E: bcfg2-client wrong-line-in-lsb-tag #                    Configuration.
E: bcfg2-client subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/bcfg2
W: bcfg2-client incoherent-init-script-name bcfg2
W: bcfg2-server invalid-license BCFG Public License
E: bcfg2-server non-readable /etc/bcfg2.key 0600
E: bcfg2-server wrong-line-in-lsb-tag #                    installs
configuration files served by bcfg2-server

invalid-license: may change to BSD, soon, anyway
non-readable: rpmlint false positive
wrong-line-in-lsb-tag: rpmlint false positive
subsys-not-used: see Jeff's explenation above: non-daemon start script
incoherent-init-script-name: OK

o package naming: OK
o specfile name: OK
o guidelines: OK
o open-source compatible license: todo
o license field: todo
o license in source: todo
o specfile in American English: OK
o specfile legible: OK
o sources match upstream: OK
  (md5sum, timestamps diverge)
o successfully compiles: OK
o excluding archs (none): OK
o BRs complete: OK
o locale: OK
o ldconfig (none needed): OK
o relocatable package (no): OK
o dir ownership: OK
o %files duplicates (none): OK
o sane permissions on files: OK
o %clean: OK
o consistent use of macros: OK
o contains code: OK
o doc subpackage (not needed): OK
o %doc influences package (no): OK
o *.pc files (none): OK
o shared libs (none): OK
o devel dependencies (no devel): OK
o *.la files (none): OK
o *.desktop file (no guis): OK
o cross-ownership (none): OK

The few todos are all about the new license which is about to be changed, so I'm
preapproving on the assumption that upstream will switch to plain BSD licensing
(according to our PM with the author). I'm also removing FE-LEGAL on the same
assumption. :)

Irrelevant nitpicking: Is %{_localstatedir} not preferred over %{_var}?


-- 
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.