[Bug 494171] Review Request: hostapd - WLAN Accesspoint daemon

[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=494171


Marcin Łabanowski <chax at i-rpg.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |chax at i-rpg.net




--- Comment #3 from Marcin Łabanowski <chax at i-rpg.net>  2009-04-08 14:35:26 EDT ---
Note that it's a practice review, I need to do some in order to get a
sponsoring.

* Naming: OK
* Version and release: OK
* Legal: OK
* No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries: OK
* Spec Legibility: OK
* Writing a package from scratch: OK
* Modifying an existing package: N/A
* Architecture Support: koji has built the package correctly, so I assume OK
* Filesystem layout: OK
- %{_datadir}/man/man5/hostapd.* - did you consider using %{_mandir} ?
* Use rpmlint: OK
* Changelogs: OK
* Tags: OK
* BuildRoot tag: OK
* Requires: OK
* BuildRequires: OK
* Summary and description: OK
* Documentation: not-OK
- Did you think about including hostapd/README?
- Did you think about building the documentation from hostapd/doc/ directory?
I've made you a list of buildrequires for that: transfig, netpbm-progs,
doxygen, graphviz, texlive-latex. I'm not sure if it's really necessary, since
it contains information about API and friends and would make a little use for
people outside the project.
* Compiler flags: OK
* Debuginfo packages: OK
* Devel packages: N/A
* Requiring Base Package: N/A
* Shared Libraries: N/A
* Packaging Static Libraries: N/A
* Duplication of system libraries: OK
* Beware of Rpath: OK
* Configuration files: OK
* Initscripts: not-OK
- The package would certainly benefit from initscript, since it's a system
daemon.
* Desktop files: N/A
* Macros: mainly OK
- See my comment for "Filesystem layout"
- You are mixing %{optflags} with $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. In my opinion it's not
really bad, 
* Handling Locale Files: N/A, hostapd is not localised.
* Timestamps: not-OK
- Add -p to your install commands.
* Parallel make: OK
* Scriptlets: OK
* Conditional dependencies: OK
* Build packages with separate user accounts: not-OK ;)
* Relocatable packages: OK
* Code Vs Content: OK
* File and Directory Ownership: OK
* Users and Groups: N/A, hostapd requires root priviledges, doesn't it?
* Web Applications: N/A
* Conflicts: OK
* No External Kernel Modules: OK
* No Files or Directories under /srv: OK
* Bundling of multiple projects: OK
* All patches should have an upstream bug link or comment: not-OK
- The Patch1 is Fedora-specific, but it doesn't say so. There is no description
of it neither.
* Application Specific Guidelines: N/A

-- 
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.