[Bug 453083] Review Request: Samba4 - Samba4 CIFS and AD server and client

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453083





--- Comment #62 from Matthias Clasen <mclasen at redhat.com>  2009-02-25 13:14:32 EDT ---
Package builds fine in mock

Formal review: 

rpmlint output: 

samba4.x86_64: E: no-binary
samba4-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.

The warning is ignorable, the error is caused by the main package being an
empty shell for now. I understand this is just temporary, until samba4 gets
released, so I don't think this is an issue.

package name: ok
spec file name: ok
packaging guidelines: ok; I guess you could be proactive and adapt to the
coming recommendation of %global over %define, but thats not ratified yet,
afaik
license: ok
license field: ok, but it would be nice to specify more exactly what parts are
LGPL
license file: ok
spec language: ok
spec legible: ok
upstream source: ok
buildable: ok
buildrequires: ok
excludearch: ok
locale handling: ok
ldconfig: ok
relocatable: ok
directory ownership: ok
duplicate files: ok
permissions: ok, I notice that pidl uses %defattr(-,root,root,-) whereas the
others use %defattr(-,root,root). Accident ? The former is preferred, I think
%clean: ok
macro use: ok
permissible content: ok
large docs: ok
%doc content: ok
headers: ok
pkgconfig: ok
shared libs: ok
-devel requires: ok, it requires -libs
la files: ok
gui apps: ok
overlap with other packages: NOT ok. -pidl includes things that are owned by
other packages, notably perl-Parse-Yapp
%install: ok
utf8 filenames: ok


summary: 
- consider using %global
- add license comment
- consider cleaning up %defattr variation
- fix -pidl conflicts

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.