[Bug 235925] Review Request: dnssec-tools - Is a tool set for use with signed DNS zones

[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: dnssec-tools - Is a tool set for use with signed DNS zones


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235925


paul at xelerance.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |paul at xelerance.com




------- Additional Comments From paul at xelerance.com  2007-04-18 17:22 EST -------

I haven't taken on a person for sponsorship yet. I'll talk to Spot about it. But
in any case, here is the review. Please let me know when all issues have been
fixed and I'll do a new review.

It fails to compile on 64bit:

RPM build errors:
    File not found:
/var/tmp/dnssec-tools-1.1.1-1-root-root/usr/lib64/debug/usr/bin/validate.debug
    File not found:
/var/tmp/dnssec-tools-1.1.1-1-root-root/usr/lib64/debug/usr/lib64/libsres.so.3.0.0.debug
    File not found:
/var/tmp/dnssec-tools-1.1.1-1-root-root/usr/lib64/debug/usr/lib64/libval-threads.so.3.0.0.debug

These seem to get mistakenly installed in
/var/tmp/dnssec-tools-1.1.1-1-root-root/usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/ instead

I am not sure why you are defining the debug package, since they are built
automatically. When your debug package "cut" from the spec file, at the end I get:
Wrote: /usr/src/redhat/SRPMS/dnssec-tools-1.1.1-1.src.rpm
Wrote: /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/x86_64/dnssec-tools-1.1.1-1.x86_64.rpm
Wrote: /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/x86_64/dnssec-tools-perlmods-1.1.1-1.x86_64.rpm
Wrote: /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/x86_64/dnssec-tools-libs-1.1.1-1.x86_64.rpm
Wrote: /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/x86_64/dnssec-tools-libs-devel-1.1.1-1.x86_64.rpm
Wrote: /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/x86_64/dnssec-tools-debuginfo-1.1.1-1.x86_64.rpm

Second:

        perl(Net::DNS::SEC) is needed by dnssec-tools-1.1.1-1.x86_64

It depends ona non-existing package, so this package would have to be added
first before Fedora can accept this package

Apart from that:

FIXME: rpmlint warnings:
 W: dnssec-tools incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1-2 1.1.1-1
 W: dnssec-tools-libs no-documentation
OK: Package Naming Guidelines followed
OK: spec file base name matches base package
OK: Packaging Guidelines followed (isn't this a recursive loop anyways :)
OK: Package complies to an opensource licence
FIX: License states "BSD" but it also includes a requirement to include a
     disclaimer for the vendor SPARTA. So license should state "BSD-like"
OK: %doc includes license file
OK: package is in american english
OK: spec file is readable.
FIX: source field using local reference instead of full URL, eg:
     Source:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
     See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SourceUrl#head-27442167fe28eb345470e8db56716d62b508978c

OK: md5sum of source matches that of upstream
OK: package compiles into binary rpms (but see note at start or review)
OK: all buildrequires listed
OK: no bad locale handling
FIX: calling ldconfig in %post/%postun in subpackage that installs lib files
     does not call %post/%postun for sub package libs-devel, which installs
     files in _libdir. in other words, add:
%post libs-devel -p /sbin/ldconfig

%postun libs-devel -p /sbin/ldconfig
OK: no relocatable

FIX: package creates directories it does not own: /usr/include/validator
     add it to the %files section
     Same for /usr/share/dnssec-tools and /etc/dnssec and the perl dirs
OK: no duplicate entries in %files
OK: every subpackage/package contains %defattr
OK: package contains %clean section and rm's buildroot
OK: macros used consistently
OK: contains contain code, or permissable content.
OK: no large documentation files in package
OK: %doc items contain no running dependancies
OK: includes files are in devel package only
OK: no static libs
OK: no .pc files without pkconfig
OK: .so$ files in devel package
OK: devel package requires package
   (though you could rewrite it to: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} 
    instead of using hardcoded name)
OK: *.la files removed correctly
OK: no .desktop file requires (no GUI is build)
OK: package owns no dir other package owns already
OK: install calls rm -rf buildroot
OK: filenames are valid UTF-8
OK: scriptlets are sane
OK: basic functinality tested and works



-- 
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.