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: puppet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180571 ------- Additional Comments From dlutter@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-03-30 15:07 EST ------- To facilitate the review, here is the output I get from rpmlint, and why I think it's ok: * No output from the SRPM * For puppet-0.15.1-1.i386.rpm: E: puppet no-binary E: puppet only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Both should be ok; the package should be noarch, but because of bz184199 it's not possible to build ruby noarch packages right now. Once 181499 has been fixed, I'll switch to building this as noarch E: puppet non-standard-uid /var/log/puppet puppet E: puppet non-standard-gid /var/log/puppet puppet E: puppet non-standard-uid /var/run/puppet puppet E: puppet non-standard-gid /var/run/puppet puppet The puppet server wants to run as user 'puppet', and needs to write to these dirs E: puppet zero-length /usr/share/doc/puppet-0.15.1/examples/root/etc/otherfile E: puppet zero-length /usr/share/doc/puppet-0.15.1/examples/root/etc/configfile Two example files that are empty upstream. If this causes problems, should I exclude them ? E: puppet incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/puppet puppet} I believe rpmlint is getting confused by the init script * For puppet-server-0.15.1-1.i386.rpm W: puppet-server no-documentation There is no server-specific documentation upstream W: puppet-server incoherent-init-script-name puppetmaster I believe rpmlint is getting confused by the init script -- 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
