[Bug 443675] Review Request: sip-redirect - Tiny IPv4 and IPv6 SIP redirect server written in Perl

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=443675


Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




--- Comment #10 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com>  2008-11-03 09:47:26 EDT ---
Thanks for woke me up, Robert :)
Let's summarize things

* issue with registration may be ignored (however I still think that all
sources, listed in Fedora's spec-files should be accessible w/o restrictions of
any kind)

* my first two remarks are cosmetic and you promised to change your spec
acordingly

* I age with you about %{_initrdir} issue - my last remark must be ignored

About touch and chmod for log files - I don't think that there are considerably
more effective techniques to create zero-length log-file if it does not exists 
than your approach (and MySQL maintainer's one, respectively).

OK, assuming that you fix spec-file according to all suggestions, here is my 

REVIEW:

- rpmlint is not silent:

[petro at Sulaco noarch]$ rpmlint sip-redirect-0.1.2-1.noarch.rpm 
sip-redirect.noarch: W: non-standard-uid /var/log/sip-redirect sip
sip-redirect.noarch: W: non-standard-gid /var/log/sip-redirect sip
sip-redirect.noarch: E: non-root-user-log-file /var/log/sip-redirect sip
sip-redirect.noarch: E: non-root-group-log-file /var/log/sip-redirect sip
sip-redirect.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post chown
sip-redirect.noarch: E: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/sip-redirect
sip-redirect}
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings.
[petro at Sulaco noarch]$ 

+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines .
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
- The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. I cannot verify it since I cannot dl files w/o
registration.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture (ppc).
+ No extra build dependencies
+ The package doesn't create additional directories.
+ The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The  package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT ).
+ The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of
Packaging Guidelines .
+ The package contains code, or permissable content.
+ No large documentation files
+ Every file, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application. 
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). 
+ All filenames in the packages are valid UTF-8.

Warnings and errors from rpmlint may be ignored in this case, so the package is 


APPROVED

-- 
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.