[Bug 172869] Review Request: nss-mdns - glibc plugin for .local name resolution

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Jun 19 19:35:15 UTC 2007


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: nss-mdns - glibc plugin for .local name resolution


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=172869





------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com  2007-06-19 15:35 EST -------
Ok, going down the checklist, since nobody else seems to be willing to.
Here are the MUST items:


rpmlint output: 

E: nss-mdns non-executable-script /usr/libexec/nss-mdns-set.pl 0644
W: nss-mdns summary-not-capitalized glibc plugin for .local name resolution
W: nss-mdns percent-in-%post
W: nss-mdns dangerous-command-in-%post mv
W: nss-mdns percent-in-%preun
W: nss-mdns dangerous-command-in-%preun mv
W: nss-mdns one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig

Proposed fixes:
- make /usr/libexec/nss-mdns-set.pl executable
- replace %{_libexec} references by %{_libexecdir}
- maybe move the backup generation into the perl script itself ?
- do %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig


package name: ok
spec file name: ok
packaging guidelines: seems to be followed in general, things to consider:
  - does make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT work ?
  - why is it necessary to move stuff from %{_libdir} to %{_lib} post install,
    does --libdir=/lib not work ?
  - the %preun script has an $1 = 0 guard, should the %post script have
    a corresponding $1 = 1 guard ?
open source license: ok
license field matches license: not ok, spec says GPL, License file says LGPL
license file included: no, it is missing, add it to %doc
spec file language: ok
spec file readability: ok
sources match upstream: ok
package builds: yes
excludearch: n/a
build requires: ok
locales: n/a
ldconfig: ok
relocatable: n/a
directory ownership: ok
no duplicate files: ok
permissions: see above for the perl script, else ok
%clean: ok
macro use: don't put slashes in front of path macros in the file list, 
  and also not in constructs like $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}, else ok
permissible content: ok
large docs: n/a
docs: ok
header files: n/a
static libs: n/a
pc files: n/a
unversioned shared libs: n/a
-devel: n/a
libtool archives: ok
desktop files: n/a
directory ownership again: ok
%install clean build root: ok
filenames utf8: ok


Can you create a new package with those issues fixes, maybe updating to the
latest version at the same time ?

-- 
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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list