[Bug 226475] Merge Review: SysVinit

[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: SysVinit


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226475


kevin at tummy.com changed:

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




------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2007-02-13 15:34 EST -------

See below - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
See below - 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
See below - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
7d5d61c026122ab791ac04c8a84db967  sysvinit-2.86.tar.gz
7d5d61c026122ab791ac04c8a84db967  sysvinit-2.86.tar.gz.1
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
See below - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.

See below - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.

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.
OK - final provides and requires are sane:

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should function as described.
See below - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
5 bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package.

Issues:

1. Ok, I have to ask... why does this package use StUdLyCaps?
The upstream package is called 'sysvinit'. I know it's been that way
forever, but perhaps we could fix that now?

2. Might include the LICENSE file, which is not the GPL, but at least explains
that this package is released under the GPL and where to get it.
I suppose you could also bug upstream about including a copy.

3. Use the approved buildroot:
      %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

4. There is a single include file shipped here in the main package:

/usr/include/initreq.h

It seems useless to make a -devel package for one header, but does it make
any sense to ship it at all? Perhaps that should just get dropped?

5. Our pal rpmlint says:
a)
W: SysVinit summary-ended-with-dot Programs which control basic system processes.

Suggest: remove . at the end of the summary?

b)
W: SysVinit no-url-tag

Suggest: add "URL: ftp://ftp.cistron.nl/pub/people/miquels/sysvinit/"
Not very informative, but better than nothing...

c)
E: SysVinit setgid-binary /usr/bin/wall tty 02555
E: SysVinit non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/wall 02555
E: SysVinit non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/wall 02555

Suggest: ignore, these are needed.

d)
W: SysVinit devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/initreq.h

Suggest: Stop shipping this? Or ignore.

e)
W: SysVinit dangerous-command-in-%post ln

Suggest: Don't see an easy way to avoid the ln. Do you?

6. Upstream seems not very active (last release 2004), but would it still
be worth trying to push some of these patches upstream? There are a lot of
them here...

7. Minor: Might replace the /usr/bin in %files with %{_bindir}

8. Minor: add dist tag?

9. The 5 outstanding bugs on this package don't seem to be package
related, but you might take a quick look at them to see if they can
easily be solved while making the above changes?

-- 
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.