[Bug 225608] Merge Review: basesystem

[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: basesystem


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225608





------- Additional Comments From pknirsch at redhat.com  2007-03-02 10:20 EST -------
Sorry it took a while to get to do the fixes.

Here first my comments on the findings:

> W: basesystem summary-ended-with-dot The skeleton package which defines a
simple Red Hat Linux system.

Fixed

> W: basesystem invalid-license public domain

Fixed, now using Public Domain (as requested below).

> W: basesystem no-url-tag

There is now upstream for this package, so the only option would be to either
make it http://www.redhat.com/ or http://www.fedoraproject.org/

> W: basesystem prereq-use setup filesystem

Fixed. Now it's Requires(Pre): setup filesystem

> W: basesystem hardcoded-path-in-buildroot-tag /var/tmp/basesystem-root

Fixed. Using the latest recommended BuildRoot 

> E: basesystem no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install

Fixed. Added empty %install section

> E: basesystem no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean

Fixed. Added empty %clean section

> W: basesystem no-%prep-section

Fixed. Added empty %prep section

> W: basesystem no-%build-section

Fixed. Added empty %build section

> W: basesystem no-%install-section

Fixed. Added empty %install section

> W: basesystem no-%clean-section

Fixed. Added empty %clean section


  RPM:
> W: basesystem summary-ended-with-dot The skeleton package which defines a
simple Red Hat Linux system.

Fixed. See above.

> W: basesystem invalid-license public domain

Fixed. See above.

> W: basesystem no-url-tag

Possible "fixes" listed above.

> W: basesystem no-documentation

basesystem doesn't have a source, nor does it contain any files. so unecessary.


Random issues:
> * Change "Red Hat Linux" to "Fedora" (both in summary and description). blocker.

Fixed.

> * What is the version "8.0"?! I can't say this follows naming guidelines.

Version of basesystem is arbitrary.

> * Make release integer (6?).

Fixed, but release can (and often will) consiste of X.Y.Z components.

> * Using Prereq is bad. Change to Requires. blocker.

Absolutely agreed. Fixed.

> * Capitalize "Public Domain".

Fixed. See above.

> * Change BuildRoot to
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

Fixed. Used the even newer recommended BuildRoot entry as per fedoraproject.org

> * description says this should be the first package installed on a system, but
the package Prereq's "setup" and "filesystem". Confusing.

Uhm, yea. Thats one of the things i'd like to go over with some folks and
discuss on f-d-l. Imo the "correct" order of those 3 packages would be:

  basesystem
  filesystem
  setup

For the simple reason as basesystem (as the description also already says)
should be the first package on a system. Then filesystem, as it creates the
basic directory structure of the system. And third setup, which contains the
basic setup for the system. I think one of the problems though is that in order
to basesystem, filesystem and setup pulled in glibc requires basesystem, which
then in turn pulls in filesystem and setup via the Requires(Pre):

[phil at kfurt tmp]$ rpm -q --whatrequires basesystem
glibc-2.5-9

[phil at kfurt tmp]$ rpm -q --whatrequires filesystem
basesystem-8.0-5.1.1
lockdev-1.0.1-10
SysVinit-2.86-14
mkinitrd-5.1.19.2-1
nautilus-2.16.2-5.el5

[phil at kfurt tmp]$ rpm -q --whatrequires setup
filesystem-2.4.0-1
basesystem-8.0-5.1.1
dump-0.4b41-2.fc6
sendmail-8.13.8-2.el5

* Add empty sections for %prep, %build, %install, and %clean. blocker.

Fixed. Added empty sections for those.

* Theoretically, the %files section should contain a %defattr line.

Fixed. Added it, just for completeness.

Summary: Overall should contain now nearly all recommended fixes. Only 2
questions are:

- What to do with URL? Really not happy about any "arbitrary" URL there.
- Discuss on f-d-l how to go about fixing the requires chain.

Read ya, Phil

-- 
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.