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: jokosher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029 ------- Additional Comments From paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-08-28 15:33 EST ------- rpmlint is not clean on the srpm - all warnings strange-permission jokosher 0755 3 patches not applied (patch0, 1, 2) invalid-licence (not worried about this one as discussed before - also applies to the rpm) mock does, indeed, build cleanly The URL you have above for the spec file is invalid. Looking at the spec file I have some concerns 1. Why have you got patches in the install section - they should be in prep. You can also make them easier on the eye by using %patch0 -p1 and that's it! 2. You need to read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python?highlight=%28python%29 as the python packaging guides have changed. It means %ghost has gone (amongst other things) 3. I can't allow install -p -m 0755 %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{_bindir}. All binaries have to be from the package itself and not just dragged from some random website or other - the possibility for interception and security problems is boundless like that. If you need a file (such as patch) you bundle it with the srpm, this is then installed happily into the SOURCES directory when the srpm is installed. 4. The line mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{python_sitelib}/%{name} is not required. It's automatically created by the next mkdir line down. -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review