[Bug 226302] Merge Review: pm-utils

[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: Merge Review: pm-utils


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226302


kevin at tummy.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|kevin at tummy.com             |pknirsch at redhat.com
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review-




------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2007-02-03 18:51 EST -------

OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (GPL)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
See below - Sources match upstream md5sum:
See below - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.

OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
See below - No rpmlint output.
See below - final provides and requires are sane:

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
15 outstanding bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package.

Issues:

1. Is there no upstream repo for this package?
Perhaps you could add it to 'hosted.fedoraproject.org' so it has some upstream
presense?
Also upstream for radeontool and vbetool links would be nice.

2. Why is pkgconfig BuildRequires there?

3. Should there be a Requires: pam?

4. Our rpmlint friend says:

rpmlint on pm-utils-0.19.1-6.fc7.src.rpm
W: pm-utils no-url-tag

Would be nice to have upstream.

W: pm-utils strange-permission 60sysfont.hook 0755
W: pm-utils strange-permission 65sound.hook 0755

I think thats ok.

W: pm-utils unversioned-explicit-obsoletes vbetool
W: pm-utils unversioned-explicit-provides vbetool
W: pm-utils unversioned-explicit-obsoletes radeontool

Would be very nice to provides versions on these if they are split out later.

rpmlint on pm-utils-0.19.1-6.fc7.x86_64.rpm
W: pm-utils no-url-tag
W: pm-utils symlink-should-be-relative /etc/sysconfig/power-management
/etc/pm/config

Should make a relative symlink there.

E: pm-utils executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/pm/config
E: pm-utils script-without-shebang /etc/pm/config

Should be mode 644

W: pm-utils non-conffile-in-etc /etc/security/console.apps/pm-hibernate
W: pm-utils non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pam.d/pm-hibernate
W: pm-utils non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pam.d/pm-suspend
W: pm-utils non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pam.d/pm-powersave
W: pm-utils non-conffile-in-etc /etc/security/console.apps/pm-suspend
W: pm-utils non-conffile-in-etc /etc/security/console.apps/pm-powersave

I think these can't be avoided, but should perhaps be config(noreplace).

W: pm-utils non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pm/hooks/49bluetooth
E: pm-utils non-executable-script /etc/pm/hooks/49bluetooth 0644

Should remove the #!/bin/bash there.

W: pm-utils dangerous-command-in-%pre cp

What are you trying to do in that pre? It looks odd.

5. Why is there a
Conflicts: bluez-utils < 2.25-6
? Shouldn't you just require the newer one?

6. Should radeontool and vbetool be split out?

7. Should use smp_mflags?

8. Should check the 15 outstanding bugs.


-- 
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.