[Bug 188445] Review Request: bootconf

[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: bootconf


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188445


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|needinfo?(mrsam at courier-    |
                   |mta.com)                    |




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2008-05-02 16:34 EST -------
Sorry, I was just doing triage on these old tickets, trying to find out whether
the submitters were still interested.

But this seems pretty simple, and most of the comments above seem to have been
addressed.  This builds fine on current F9/rawhide; rpmlint is down to:

  bootconf.src: W: strange-permission bootconf.spec 0600
I don't particularly care about this as long as it's not 666 or something like that.

  bootconf-gui.noarch: W: no-documentation
  bootconf-gui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pam.d/bootconf
  bootconf-gui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc 
   /etc/security/console.apps/bootconf
All addressed as OK above.

The specfile still refers to a file which doesn't exist when you look at the
srpm.  You have to realize that you need to unpack the tarball and look there
for the license file.  I brought the topic on fedora-packaging and nobody else
stated an opinion so I won't block on it though I do think it's suboptimal. 
(Honestly there's not much that's copyrightable in a specfile anyway.)

If you're going to use the macro-ized forms of things like %{__make} then you
should use %{__rm} and %{__cat} as well.

There are a couple of issues with the scriptlets.  Firstly, for the scriptlets
you have, you need fine-grained dependencies for desktop-file-utils (like
"Requires(pre):".  However, the desktop-database section of
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets has some explanatory
text about making the scriptlets so that they don't depend on desktop-file-utils
; can you check that page and update accordingly?

I will also say that I understand previous comments about this duplicating
existing functionality, but I don't really have a problem with that.  If there
were a hard rule against it, we wouldn't have apt and such in the distro.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.