so files in -devel subpackage, if present. : Package contains no static executables. : Package does not contain kernel modules. License tag is incomplete - there are multiple additional licenses other than %check doesn't appear to be running (all?) the tests Subpackage must Require: main package with epoch and release. Package must BuildRequire: perl-generators instead of setting Requires: Note: Installation errors (see attachment) = Pass, = Fail, = Not applicable, = Not evaluated I will add these action items to my to-do list when I return home. I am out of town for my dayjob all week this week. I forgot the modify this line when I put epoch back in. > Source0: > I think you need to include the epoch here. I have this included because I plan to build for el7, and hardened builds default to off. > %global _hardened_build 1 > This shouldn't be needed in Fedora anymoreĪgreed. I owe you one, should you ever need me to review one of your requests. I was beginning to wonder what creative posts I might need to come up with on the devel list, funny jokes, recent declaration of independence, etc to persuade someone to review this for me. Scott - Thank you very much to taking on this review. I have placed Epoch back into the specfile. > package installed for whatever reason, so they may end up still sticking > the upgrade path for the people who still have the F23 or pre-F24-Rawhide > people may want to keep them deliberately). > forced obsoletion of retired packages as long as they still work because > they just forgot about it – and for the record, I am absolutely against > deliberately because they still need the package, or accidentally because > release no longer provides it but does not force its removal (either > upgrading, or even keep the package from the EOL release if the newer > be reintroduced with a lower (or no) Epoch. This package has been in Fedora with Epoch 5, so it should never (In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #13) I will handle any requests for el6 support, if there are any, later. Lastly, this review request is intended for el7 and fedora only. I could try to move these into %build if someone thinks that should be done. I found the way the specfile computes the pkgver and xslver globals to be unusual. I am not confident that removing this would not cause any unforseen problems, so I left it in. This spec files uses Epoch for historical reasons, and this seems to be one of those things where, if you start down this path, you never go back. This specfile is based on the spcfile provided by upstream developer, HAT, shown in this older review request: Netatalk.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cnid2_create > afppasswd functions similar to passwd, which also generates the same message from rpmlint Netatalk.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/afppasswd 4755 Netatalk.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /usr/bin/afppasswd root 4755 setgid and setuid seem to be in the correct order. Netatalk.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/sbin/cnid_dbd Netatalk.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/sbin/afpd Simultaneously as an AppleShare file server (AFP). System running Netatalk is capable of serving many Macintosh clients Netatalk is a freely-available Open Source AFP file server.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |