[Bug 188542] Review Request: hylafax

[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 report.

Summary: Review Request: hylafax


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542





------- Additional Comments From fedora at christoph-wickert.de  2006-12-05 18:38 EST -------
(In reply to comment #38)
> The software development is moving much faster than progress on this review
> request.

I am very sorry about that. Please try to see it from my point of view: One
reason for this review proceeding so slow is that it's so confusing: Packages
don't match the spec file, there was hardly any changelog information at the
beginning, lots of rpmlint errors, ...

> I apologize for giving you rpmlint output for an RPM that was more
> conveniently at my disposal.  For your benefit, I have downloaded the SRPM given
> in comment #31, rebuilt it on FC6, and here is the rpmlint output:
> 
> [root at dhcp031 i386]# rpmlint hylafax-5.0.0-1.i386.rpm
> W: hylafax incoherent-version-in-changelog 5.0.0 5.0.0-1

This is an easy one. Why not fix it _before_ submitting the package? As I
already said: Keeping the changelog up to date makes it easier for me to follow
the changes.

> E: hylafax invalid-soname /usr/lib/libfaxutil.so.5.0.0 libfaxutil.so
> E: hylafax invalid-soname /usr/lib/libfaxserver.so.5.0.0 libfaxserver.so
> W: hylafax devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libfaxserver.so
> E: hylafax non-readable /var/spool/hylafax/etc/hosts.hfaxd 0600
> E: hylafax executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.hourly/hylafax
> E: hylafax script-without-shebang /usr/sbin/faxsetup.linux
> E: hylafax executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.daily/hylafax
> E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/archive 0700
> W: hylafax devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libfaxutil.so
> E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/doneq 0700
> E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/sendq 0700
> E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/tmp 0700
> E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/docq 0700
> W: hylafax non-conffile-in-etc /etc/hylafax/faxcover_example_sgi.ps
> E: hylafax non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/hylafax/pollq 0700
> E: hylafax executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/hylafax
> [root at dhcp031 i386]#

Strange. Mine looks different, see comment #34. I have been building this
package several times locally and in mock, always with the same results: Files
under /usr/sbin are not executable.

Can you upload your binaries somewhere?

> > I agree. I think the source should be named hylafax+<version>.tar.gz, too.
> 
> Apache distributes its webserver in a source repository named
> httpd-2.2.3.tar.gz.  Following the suggestions here, we should petition them to
> change their package name to something more specific to their version, like
> "apache-httpd".  Apache's naming convention makes complete sense to me, and
> undoubtedly I am not alone in this understanding as they have had it named that
> way for a very long time.
> 
> Fedora uses the repository name as the source for the httpd package name.

This is Core, not Extras. Packages in Core don't necessarily follow the FE
Packaging and Naming Guidelines and haven't got through a review.

The apache package doesn't follow the naming guidelines. It not on me to judge
if it makes sense or doesn't, but picking out an exception from the rule is not
a good reason for making more exceptions from that rule.

> The upstream repository will remain named as it is.  

I don't have to judge on this too, but IMO this is bad: Having two source
archives with the same name and potentially even the same version, but with
different content inside is confusing. Once downloaded it is very hard for
people to distinguish which version they have.

> As for the package name, it
> matters not to me if it is called "hylafax" or "hylafax+".  However, my
> suggestion would follow what I've said above about the Apache http server.  The
> distinction of the "+" will mean very little to Fedora users (and in-fact may
> make the package more-difficult to identify) unless there is more than one
> HylaFAX package being distributed by Fedora (say, for example, separate
> "hylafax+" and "hylafax.org" packages).

Maybe someone else one day will submit another review for hylafax(.org).

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