[Bug 228555] Review Request: Fedora Directory 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: Fedora Directory Server


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228555


jeff at ocjtech.us changed:

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




------- Additional Comments From jeff at ocjtech.us  2007-02-14 10:48 EST -------
* source files match upstream - no differences found when comparing included
tarball with tarball generated by included script
! package meets naming and packaging guidelines.

  See below.

* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (fc7 i386, fc6 i386).
* package installs properly. 
! rpmlint says:

W: fedora-ds invalid-license GPL plus extensions
W: fedora-ds-devel invalid-license GPL plus extensions
W: fedora-ds-debuginfo invalid-license GPL plus extensions
W: fedora-ds invalid-license GPL plus extensions

Perhaps should use just GPL as the license tag?

E: fedora-ds dir-or-file-in-tmp /var/tmp/fedora-ds

Is this directory really needed?

W: fedora-ds log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/fedora-ds

Is there something built into the directory server to rotate log files?

E: fedora-ds-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
W: fedora-ds-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/fedora-ds/libns-dshttpd.so
libns-dshttpd.so.0.0.0
W: fedora-ds-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/fedora-ds/libslapd.so
libslapd.so.0.0.0
W: fedora-ds-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/fedora-ds/libds_admin.so
libds_admin.so.0.0.0

I think that these can be ignored, rpmlint doesn't seem to handle this case
appropriately

* %check is not present; There is no test code in the districution.
* shared libraries are present, ldconfig called in %post & %postun
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets are OK
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* header files are in -devel package
* unversioned .so files in -devel package
* no pkconfig file
* no libtool .la droppings.

Other notes:

* "-p" should be used to preserve timestamps when installing
  slapi-plugin.h

* Include a comment near the "Source0" line that indicates that the
  "fedora-ds-cvs.sh" script should be used to generate the tarball.

* Release should be 0.1.%{cvsdate}%{?dist}


-- 
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.