[Bug 468753] Review Request: nss-myhostname - glibc plugin for local system host name resolution

[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=468753





--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-03-07 16:47:57 EDT ---
Sorry that nobody has looked at this in so long.  Fortunately it still builds
fine in current rawhide.

rpmlint complains:
  nss-myhostname.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized glibc plugin for local 
   system host name resolution
which is technically correct, but I personally would see "Glibc" as being a bit
odd.  I'll leave that up to you.

The LICENSE file needs to be included in the package as %doc.

%post calls ldconfig and sed without explicit dependencies; %preun calls sed
without a dependency on it.  %postun is OK because rpm gets that dependency
right.

I installed this and it seems to work as advertised.

The scriptlets seem the same as those in nss-mdns and look OK to me.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
   e28b93ca1cabb1c09f16c5d69706ad99952146078cd3cf8565eae26e99af8207  
   nss-myhostname-0.2.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
X license text not included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
X final provides and requires:
   libnss_myhostname.so.2()(64bit)
   nss-myhostname = 0.2-1.fc11
   nss-myhostname(x86-64) = 0.2-1.fc11
  =
   /bin/sh
   /sbin/ldconfig
X  missing sed

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.  I tested this and it seems to 
  work as far as I can tell.
* shared libraries are installed; ldconfig called properly.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
X scriptlets are OK but dependencies are missing.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

-- 
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.