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=470354 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-13 18:01:30 EDT --- rpmlint says: noip.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/noip noip noip.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/run/noip noip noip.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/noip 0700 noip.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /etc/no-ip2.conf noip noip.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /etc/no-ip2.conf noip noip.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/noip 0700 noip.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/no-ip2.conf 0600 All of these are fine. noip.x86_64: E: zero-length /etc/no-ip2.conf Can this file accept any comments? Is there any way to put any initial content there? It's not generally a good idea to ship empty but significant files. noip.x86_64: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/noip $prog This is bogus; rpmlint doesn't understand when you put the service name in a variable. Unfortunately there's not much I can do besides verify that the client at least does something; I don't use no-ip.com services. A little bit of indenting might make the %pre script clearer; it looks like the wiki sample of this got damaged somehow. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 82b9bafab96a0c53b21aaef688bf70b3572e26217b5e2072bdb09da3c4a6f593 noip-duc-linux.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none). * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint has a valid complaint. * final provides and requires are sane: config(noip) = 2.1.9-2.fc11 noip = 2.1.9-2.fc11 noip(x86-64) = 2.1.9-2.fc11 = /bin/sh chkconfig config(noip) = 2.1.9-2.fc11 initscripts shadow-utils * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * Init script looks OK. * scriptlets are OK (user creation in %pre, initscript setup in %post and %preun). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review