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: pdsh https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180743 ------- Additional Comments From paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-02-24 03:01 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7) > OK fixed a bunch more things. Now all packages not just the src.rpm have almost > all their warnings resolved: > > $ sudo rm -f /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/pdsh-*;sudo cp /tmp/pdsh.spec .;sudo > rpmbuild -ba pdsh.spec Why are you building packages as root? This is potentially a security issue and it can also hide some issues that may crop up when the package is rebuilt as a regular user (some upstream packages have $(DESTDIR) missing in some Makefile entries for instance). ; rpmlint /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/pdsh-* | grep -v > invalid-vendor | grep -v invalid-distribution | grep -v no-packager-tag| grep -v > invalid-buildhost | grep -v no-signature > <snip> > W: pdsh-debuginfo non-standard-group Development/Debug > W: pdsh-rcmd-rsh no-documentation > W: pdsh-rcmd-ssh no-documentation > > The debuginfo package warning I think will be resolved by building in a > different environment. Which rpmlint are you using? I've never seen the Extras version complain about the group used in automatically-generated debuginfo packages, nor about missing packager tags. I'd change the Source0 URL to: http://dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/pdsh/pdsh-%{version}-1.tar.gz so as not to use a specific mirror and to use the %{version} macro to save you having to change it when upstream releases a new version. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
