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: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |182235 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-10 18:02 EST ------- Note to FE-Legal folks, this package needs attention for two reasons and perhaps a third as well. Please search for FE-Legal below. Now, to the review. Was the hylafax/hylafax+ issue ever resolved? Do we need FE-Legal to be involved in that? Can you explain why the tarball in the src.rpm does not match the tarball fetched from the Source0: URL? There seem to be rather significant source differences. This kind of thing is not permissible; the sources in the src.rpm must be identical to the upstream sources except in specific limited cases where we must remove something. I note that the tarball in the src.rpm seems to be three days newer than the one upstream. I don't believe we should package /etc/hylafax/faxcover_example_sgi.ps. It contains the old SGI name and logo and I'm pretty certain we shouldn't be sticking it in /etc whenever someone installs this software. I'm not even sure we have the legal right to distribute it, which is reason one for blocking FE-Legal. It doesn't particularly bother me, but the guidelines to specify that you not use a specific sourceforge mirror for the source URL. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL (although personally I find I often have to add one just to get things to download, since sourceforge is so incredibly unreliable). I recommend not using the name of the package in the summary, as it tends to look rather redundant in listings. Still, there is a change of case so I won't block the package if you think it really needs to be there. I'm going to have to get expert assistance with the License: tag; the license given in the COPYRIGHT file is actually identical to the libtiff license, which gets its own "libtiff" license tag, but the regex code is clearly the bad "BSD+Advertising" clause which is GPL-incompatible and thus causes issues. Reason two that I'm blocking FE-Legal for guidance. Your changelog entries are not in one of the acceptable formats. These are parsed automatically, so please follow the formats given in the Changelogs section of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines and please also include a comment every time you change the release. You need a dependency on the crontabs package if you want to put things in /etc/cron.daily. You call ldconfig in your scriptlets, but you don't have any dependencies on it. When you use the single-line scriptlets (%post -p /sbin/ldconfig) then you don't need them, but when you use multiline scriptlets you have to specify the dependencies manually. Finally, I have significant issues with the amount of stuff this package puts under /var/spool. I don't believe any of the files belong there at all. Executables, certainly not. Unless you can illustrate how the FHS allows such things, I cannot approve this package. The modem config files need to be under /etc; the executables probably belong under /usr/libexec if they're not supposed to be run by the end user. Checklist: X source files do not match upstream. * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. ? summary includes the name of the package. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field matches the actual license. ? license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. X changelogs not correctly formatted. * 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: config(hylafax) = 5.2.4-3.fc9 libfaxserver.so.5.2.4()(64bit) libfaxutil.so.5.2.4()(64bit) hylafax = 5.2.4-3.fc9 = /bin/sh /sbin/chkconfig /sbin/service config(hylafax) = 5.2.4-3.fc9 gawk ghostscript libfaxserver.so.5.2.4()(64bit) libfaxutil.so.5.2.4()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) liblber-2.4.so.2()(64bit) libldap-2.4.so.2()(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libtiff.so.3()(64bit) libutil.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) mailx sharutils X (missing crontabs for /etc/cron.*) X (missing /sbin/ldconfig dependency for %post and %postun) * %check is not present; no test suite present. I have no way to test this software. X shared libraries are present; ldconfig called properly but dependency on it is missing. X ownership problems for /etc/cron.* * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. X scriptlets are OK, but ldconfig 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
