Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=813982
Jos de Kloe josdek...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||josdek...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Jos de Kloe josdek...@gmail.com ---
here are a first few remarks:
first a maybe ignorant question from my side: what does this package add to the
yum system that we already have? Isn't that capable of doing the same? Could
you please explain a little.
mock tests run fine on my f18 system:
mock -r fedora-18-x86_64 --rebuild rpmt-py-1.0.8-1.fc18.src.rpm
this creates 3 rpms in /var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/result
rpmlint results on these:
$ rpmlint rpmt-py-1.0.8-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
rpmt-py.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rpmlib - rpm lib,
rpm-lib, millibar
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint rpmt-py-1.0.8-1.fc18.src.rpm
rpmt-py.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rpmlib - rpm lib,
rpm-lib, millibar
rpmt-py.src: W: invalid-url Source0: rpmt-py-1.0.8.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
$ rpmlint rpmt-py-selinux-1.0.8-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
so all seems fine here.
There is no license file in the package
According to: http://sourceforge.net/projects/quattor/
Applicable licenses seem to be:
Apache License V2.0
and EU DataGrid Software License
According to:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines
If the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the
packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake.
so please file a request or bug report upstream and refer to it here.
Also according to this section on the same page:
Dual Licensing Scenarios: If your package is dual licensed (or triple
licensed, etc.), the spec must reflect this by using or as a separator. Note
that this only applies when the contents of the package are actually under a
dual license, and not when the package contains items under multiple, distinct,
and independent licenses.
therefore you should mention both licenses in the spec file, separated by or.
On https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
The File Dependencies section states:
Rpm gives you the ability to depend on files instead of packages. Whenever
possible you should avoid file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin.
So in stead of requiring /usr/share/selinux/devel/policyhelp
it might be better to require the selinux-policy-doc package that contains it.
It also is not clear to me why this python module would require a documentation
package at runtime.
Could you please explain this? (could be my own ignorance since I am not
intimately familiar with selinux, but a few comments on the subject would
still be apropriate I think).
A, I see now that it actually is mentioned here as well:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SELinux_Policy_Modules_Packaging_Draft?rd=PackagingDrafts/SELinux/PolicyModules
so sorry to bother you with it.
In addition, /usr/sbin/semodule and /sbin/restorecon are both part
of the policycoreutils package, so requiring that one in stead would
simplify the Requires(post) line a little.
The section Runtime Dependencies on this page:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SELinux_Policy_Modules_Packaging_Draft?rd=PackagingDrafts/SELinux/PolicyModules
states:
If you are not building an integrated package, then the myapp-selinux package
needs to have a dependency on the myapp package.
So I would have expected this line:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
in the selinux section of the spec file.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=z0k2kohCSZa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
