[Bug 435121] Review Request: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Apr 23 18:53:48 UTC 2008


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: dspam - Scalable and open-source content-based spam filter


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435121


mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp  2008-04-23 14:53 EST -------
Well, I caught a cold so maybe I am missing something...
however for 3.8.0-24:

* undefined macro
  - %_dspam_webapp seems undefined.

* %post/%postun for subpackages
-----------------------------------------------
%post backend-mysql -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun backend-mysql -p /sbin/ldconfig
-----------------------------------------------
  - These types of scriptlets are now not needed as
    modules are not installed under default ldconfig search
    paths.

* Library installation directory
  - On the other hand, installing lib%{name}*.so under
    %_libdir/%name is not right as
-----------------------------------------------
[root at localhost ~]# ldd -r /usr/sbin/dspam 2>&1 | grep -v /lib
undefined symbol: __syslog_lock (/usr/sbin/dspam)
undefined symbol: lc    (/usr/sbin/dspam)
undefined symbol: _ds_prepare_path_for  (/usr/sbin/dspam)
......
undefined symbol: dspam_getsource       (/usr/sbin/dspam)
        linux-gate.so.1 =>  (0x00110000)
        libdspam.so.7 => not found
-----------------------------------------------
    I guess -24 is not working for you.

* Unifying documents directory
  - Well, I think unifying documents directory is preferable,
    however your current method is undesirable (actually this
    mistake is not uncommon)

    * First you create the directory
-----------------------------------------------
  1336  + /usr/bin/install -Dd
/var/tmp/dspam-3.8.0-24.fc9-root/usr/share/doc/dspam-3.8.0/pgsql
-----------------------------------------------
      At this stage the directory %buildroot%_defaultrootdir/%name-%version
      exists.

    * Then you move the directory:
-----------------------------------------------
  1338  + /bin/mv /var/tmp/dspam-3.8.0-24.fc9-root/usr/share/doc/dspam
/var/tmp/dspam-3.8.0-24.fc9-root/usr/share/doc/dspam-3.8.0
-----------------------------------------------
      This creates %buildroot%_defaultrootdir/%name-%version/%name and
      moves files under there, which I guess is not what you want.

    * And the problem also occurs at %doc. What %doc actually does is that:
-----------------------------------------------
  1379  Processing files: dspam-3.8.0-24.fc9
  1380  Executing(%doc): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.45745
  1381  + umask 022
  1382  + cd /builddir/build/BUILD
  1383  + cd dspam-3.8.0
  1384  + DOCDIR=/var/tmp/dspam-3.8.0-24.fc9-root/usr/share/doc/dspam-3.8.0
  1385  + export DOCDIR
  1386  + rm -rf /var/tmp/dspam-3.8.0-24.fc9-root/usr/share/doc/dspam-3.8.0
  1387  + /bin/mkdir -p /var/tmp/dspam-3.8.0-24.fc9-root/usr/share/doc/dspam-3.8.0
  1388  + cp -pr CHANGELOG
/var/tmp/dspam-3.8.0-24.fc9-root/usr/share/doc/dspam-3.8.0
-----------------------------------------------
      This explains what %doc does, i.e.
      - First %doc _removes_ %buildroot%_defaultdocdir/%name-%version.
        So all files installed under this directory are gone.
      - Then %doc creates %buildroot%_defaultdocdir.

* rpmlint issue
-----------------------------------------------
dspam.src: E: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
dspam.i386: E: shell-syntax-error-in-%preun
dspam-devel.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/man/man3/dspam_addattribute.3.gz /usr/share/man/man3/libdspam.3.gz
dspam-devel.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/man/man3/dspam_attach.3.gz /usr/share/man/man3/libdspam.3.gz
dspam-devel.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/man/man3/dspam_create.3.gz /usr/share/man/man3/libdspam.3.gz
dspam-devel.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/man/man3/dspam_destroy.3.gz /usr/share/man/man3/libdspam.3.gz
dspam-devel.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/man/man3/dspam_detach.3.gz /usr/share/man/man3/libdspam.3.gz
dspam-devel.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/man/man3/dspam_getsource.3.gz /usr/share/man/man3/libdspam.3.gz
dspam-devel.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/man/man3/dspam_init.3.gz /usr/share/man/man3/libdspam.3.gz
dspam-devel.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/man/man3/dspam_process.3.gz /usr/share/man/man3/libdspam.3.gz
-----------------------------------------------
   Summary:
   - Please add %clean section
   - There is a syntax error in %preun of dspam
-----------------------------------------------
%preun
if [ "$1" = 0 ]; then
   /sbin/service %{name} stop >/dev/null 2>&
                                        ^^^^^
   /sbin/chkconfig --del %{name}
fi
-----------------------------------------------
    - Symlinks should be relative, not absolute.

* %pre script
  - %pre script is missing (needed for registering dspam user/group:
    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UsersAndGroups )

* Directory ownership issue
-----------------------------------------------
[tasaka1 at localhost dspam]$ LANG=C rpm -qf /usr/lib/dspam
file /usr/lib/dspam is not owned by any package
-----------------------------------------------

* %_mandir files attribution
  - Files under %_mandir are automatically marked as %doc.

* %defattr
  - We now recommend %defattr(-,root,root,-)

* autotool-generated header files inclusion
  - As said before, please remove config.h from %_includedir/%name.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list