[Bug 225906] Merge Review: iptables

Wed Feb 14 03:40:07 UTC 2007

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: iptables

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225906

kevin at tummy.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review-

------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2007-02-13 22:40 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.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
dd965bdacbb86ce2a6498829fddda6b7  iptables-1.3.7.tar.bz2
dd965bdacbb86ce2a6498829fddda6b7  iptables-1.3.7.tar.bz2.1
See below - BuildRequires correct
See below - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
See below - 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.

OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
See below - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
See below - .so files in -devel subpackage.
See below - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

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 subpackages require base package with fully versioned
depend.
See below - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
21 outstanding bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package.

Issues:

1. The Source URL is no longer correct.
Suggest: http://www.netfilter.org/projects/iptables/files/iptables-1.3.7.tar.bz2

2. Can the
Prefix: %{_prefix}
be removed? Is there any reason this package needs to be relocatable?

3. Minor: The BuildRequires: /usr/bin/perl
isn't required, as perl is part of the default build root.

4. Is the %defattr(-,root,root,0755) needed? or will %defattr(-,root,root,-) work?

5. Use the default correct buildroot:

      %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

6. Any reason the package makes a static lib instead of a shared lib?
Does anything use iptables-devel? Might be nice to remove the .a and
make a shared lib instead.

7. The devel and ipv6 subpackages have

Requires: %{name} = %{version}

Suggest: change that to:

Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

8. Our buddy rpmlint says:

a)
W: iptables summary-ended-with-dot Tools for managing Linux kernel packet
filtering capabilities.

Suggest: remove . at end of summary.

b)
E: iptables tag-not-utf8 %changelog

Looks like the checkins from
Trond Eivind Glomsr<F8>d <teg at redhat.com>
are not proper ut8f.

Suggest: Change to utf8.

c)
W: iptables strange-permission iptables.init 0755

Suggest: change the source file permissions to 644 and install it
as 755 only when installing?

d)
E: iptables non-utf8-spec-file iptables.spec

The encoding of the entire spec is not utf8.
Suggest: run iconv on it?

e)
E: iptables broken-syntax-in-scriptlet-requires Requires(post,postun): chkconfig

There was a rpm bug that made that syntax not work right.

Suggest: Change to:

Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig
Requires(preun): /sbin/chkconfig

f)
W: iptables redundant-prefix-tag

Suggest: remove prefix.

g)
W: iptables rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf %{buildroot} 

Suggest: remove rm in prep stage. It's not needed here.

h) 
W: iptables macro-in-%changelog postun
W: iptables macro-in-%changelog preun

Suggest: Change any %macro names in changelog to be %%macro so rpm
doesn't try and expand them.

i)
E: iptables no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install

Suggest: add the rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT here.

j)
W: iptables conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/iptables

Suggest: No need to mark the init script as a config file.

k) 
E: iptables non-readable /etc/sysconfig/iptables-config 0600

I guess this can be ignored. Not sure how much security it provides however.

l)
W: iptables service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/iptables

Normally this is a no-no, but in this case I think we do want it
enabled by default. 

m)
W: iptables no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/iptables

reload doesn't make sense here.

n)
W: iptables-devel spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/iptables.h
W: iptables-devel spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/ip6tables.h
W: iptables-devel spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/iptables_common.h

Suggest: Those headers should be mode 644. 

o)
E: iptables-ipv6 executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/ip6tables

See item l above... should probibly not be a config file.

p)
W: iptables-ipv6 service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/ip6tables
W: iptables-ipv6 no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/ip6tables
W: iptables-ipv6 incoherent-init-script-name ip6tables

Ignore.  

9. Minor: Consider adding a dist tag?

10. 21 outstanding bugs. None appear to be directly packaging related.
However, there are some high priority ones and the secmark bug should
would be very nice to solve before f7.

-- 
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.