[Bug 226448] Merge Review: sysklogd

[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: Merge Review: sysklogd


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226448


kevin at tummy.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|kevin at tummy.com             |pvrabec at redhat.com
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review-




------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2007-02-16 19:53 EST -------
Sorry for the delay in reviewing this. My build machine had issues... 

OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (GPL)
OK - License field in spec matches
See below - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
See below - Sources match upstream md5sum:
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.

OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
See below - Package owns all the directories it creates.
See below - No rpmlint output.
OK - final provides and requires are sane:

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
See below - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
7 outstanding bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package.

Issues:

1. Might include the COPYING file?

2. What is the upstream source for the sysklogd-1.4.1rh.tar.gz?
This looks like a locally modified version of the upstream sysklogd-1.4.1.tar.gz.
Why is this done instead of using the upstream source and applying patches to it?

3. Since this package has a logrotate file, shouldn't it 'Require: logrotate' ?

4. Our handy little scripty friend rpmlint says:

a)
W: sysklogd prereq-use fileutils /sbin/chkconfig /etc/init.d

The use of PreReq is deprecated. In the majority of cases, a plain Requires
is enough and the right thing to do. Sometimes Requires(pre), Requires(post),
Requires(preun) and/or Requires(postun) can also be used instead of PreReq.

b)
W: sysklogd unversioned-explicit-provides syslog

Is this needed for an old package? Or to smooth transition to something like
syslog-ng?

c)
W: sysklogd macro-in-%changelog postun
W: sysklogd macro-in-%changelog post
W: sysklogd macro-in-%changelog preun
W: sysklogd macro-in-%changelog preun
W: sysklogd macro-in-%changelog clean
W: sysklogd macro-in-%changelog post

Suggest: Change macros in changelog to use %% so rpm doesn't expand them.

d)
W: sysklogd mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 165, tab: line 59)

Suggest: pick tabs or spaces, don't use both.

e)
E: sysklogd incoherent-logrotate-file /etc/logrotate.d/syslog

This is due to this package being called sysklogd, and the init
script being called syslog. Can we rename this to sysklogd? Or would
that end up breaking too much? As a side note, I have found myself
doing 'service sysklogd restart' and then having to go look and see
that it's called syslog. ;)

f)
W: sysklogd service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/syslog

In this case we can ignore that, we want a syslog by default. ;)

5. You could add a dist tag, but this package appears dead upstream,
so it's unlikely that it would need to be rebased much if any.

6. There are 7 outstanding bugs. You might look through them and see
if any of them could be addressed while other items are being taken care
of for this review.

-- 
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.