[Bug 449037] Review Request: afio - cpio compatible archiver

[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: afio - cpio compatible archiver


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449037





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2008-06-06 16:34 EST -------
I agree with Kyle that its easier on the reviewers if you don't require them to
download and unpack your src.rpm to take a quick look at your spec.  I guess it
depends on how much you really want to have your software reviewed.

Now, I did unpack and build it.  First, the rpmlint output:
  W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/afio.1.gz
There's no reason for the manpage to be executable.

  W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script2/restore
  W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script3/gnupg_read
  W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script3/pgp_read
  W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script3/pgp_write
  W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script4/tapechange
  W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script3/gnupg_write
  W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script2/backup
It's not necessarily a blocker for documentation to be executable, but you
should consider whether you expect that anyone will need to call those scripts,
because you shouldn't expect people to have to run things out of /usr/share/doc.

  W: invalid-license GPL
Please read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing and choose an appropriate
License: tag.

  W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script2/backup /bin/bash
This shouldn't be an issue if those scripts actually belong in the
documentation.  We will avoid the case that documentation brings in significant
additional dependencies, but bash isn't problematic.

Other comments:
Please be consistent in macro use in the spec; if you're going to use "%{__rm}"
then you need to use "%{__mkdir}", "%{__mkdir_p}", "%{__install}", etc.  Or you
can just use the non-macro versions throughout and save the typing.  It's up to
you, but you must be consistent.

You must not hardcode ".fc9".  Please use the %{dist} tag appropriately:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag

Is ftp.project-builder.org really the canonical upstream for the source?  It
seems like the URL you provide doesn't point to that site at all.

-- 
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.