[Bug 500746] Review Request: 389-admin - renamed from fedora-ds-admin

[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=500746


Jochen Schmitt <jochen at herr-schmitt.de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |jochen at herr-schmitt.de
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #10 from Jochen Schmitt <jochen at herr-schmitt.de>  2009-06-17 13:14:16 EDT ---
Good:
+ Name of the SPEC file matches with package name.
+ Pakcage name fullfill naming guidelines
+ URL tag show on proper project homepage
+ Package contains valid license tag
+ License tag state GPLv2 as a valid OSS license
+ Package contains no subpackages
+ Provides/Obsoletes statement for renaming process are ok.
+ BuildRoot will be cleaned at the beginnung of %clean and %install
+ Could download upstream tar ball via spectool -g
+ Package source matches with upstream
(md5sum: cd3fd64fabc0265e2765101d032d7150)
+ Package contains proper BuildRoot definition
+ Package honour $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
+ Package support SMP-enabled build
+ Local build works fine
+ Rpmlint is silent on debuginfo rpm
+ Local install/uninstall works fine
+ Scratch build works fine
+ Files has proper files permission
+ %files stanza contains no duplicated entries
+ All package files are owned by this package
+ No package files are belong to a other package
+ %doc stanza is mall, no extra sub package is required
+ Package contains proper changelog

Bad:
- I have found source files which state GPLv2+ or AL 2.0 as
  license. Please clarify the stated license on the license tag
- Package only contains the LICENSE file, but the COPYING file,
  which contains the verbatin text of the GPLv2 is not included
- Usage of the %{_initrddir} macro is obsoleted
- Why do you set the owner/permission of some files explicitly in the
  %post scriptlet?
- warning from rpmlint about source rpm.
   rpmlint 389-admin-1.1.7-5.fc11.src.rpm
   389-admin.src: W: strange-permission 389-admin-git.sh 0775
- Warnings from rpmlint about the binary rpm
   $ rpmlint 389-admin-1.1.7-5.fc11.x86_64.rpm
   389-admin.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post chmod
   389-admin.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name dirsrv-admin

-- 
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.