[Bug 226313] Merge Review: ppp

[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=226313





--- Comment #1 from Jiri Popelka <jpopelka at redhat.com>  2009-11-25 11:23:05 EDT ---
formal review is here, see the notes below:

YES source files match upstream:
  183800762e266132218b204dfb428d29  ppp-2.4.4.tar.gz
YES package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
YES specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros
consistently.
YES dist tag is present.

YES build root is correct.
 BuildRoot in spec file has value: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-root
According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
the BuildRoot value MUST contain at least %{name}, %{version} and %{release}.
I'm giving YES because the RPM in Fedora 10 and above defines a default
buildroot
so in Fedora 10 and above it is no longer necessary to define a buildroot tag. 

YES license field matches the actual license.
YES license is open source-compatible.

NO License text included in package.
 I didn't find license text

NO latest version is being packaged.
 ppp-2.4.5.tar.gz has been released 11/17/2009

NO BuildRequires are proper.
 Build requirements are proper but they are defined in BuildPrereq (should be
BuildRequires)

YES compiler flags are appropriate.
YES %clean is present.
YES package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64).
YES debuginfo package looks complete.

NO rpmlint is silent.
ppp.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot The PPP (Point-to-Point Protocol) daemon.
ppp.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary PPP
ppp.src: W: no-url-tag
ppp.src:33: E: buildprereq-use pam-devel, libpcap-devel
ppp.src:84: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
ppp.src:337: W: macro-in-%changelog %{_mandir}
ppp.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 51, tab: line 303)
ppp.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot The PPP (Point-to-Point Protocol) daemon.
ppp.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary PPP
ppp.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
ppp.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/ppp 0700
ppp.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/pppoe-discovery 0555
ppp.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ppp/chap-secrets 0600
ppp.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/ppp/pap-secrets 0600
ppp.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/pppd 0555
ppp-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
ppp-devel.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 11 warnings.

YES final provides and requires look sane.
N/A %check is present and all tests pass.
YES no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
YES owns the directories it creates.
YES doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
YES no duplicates in %files.

NO file permissions are appropriate.
 see rpmlint errors

YES no scriptlets present.
YES code, not content.
YES documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
YES %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
YES no headers.
YES no pkgconfig files.
YES no libtool .la droppings.
YES not a GUI app.

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