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=500713 --- Comment #4 from Rich Megginson <rmeggins@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-18 15:24:30 EDT --- Updated: Spec URL: http://rmeggins.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/389-ds-base.spec SRPM URL: http://rmeggins.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/389-ds-base-1.2.1-1.src.rpm Source URL: http://port389.org/sources/389-ds-base-1.2.1.tar.bz2 Other source files mentioned in spec are at http://rmeggins.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview sha1sum 389-ds-base-1.2.1.tar.bz2 f2bd1d448cddb6bddfb5c62f97e898a97d253c5e 389-ds-base-1.2.1.tar.bz2 md5sum 389-ds-base-1.2.1.tar.bz2 5c14449d2960ddba89efc48269ba6f3b 389-ds-base-1.2.1.tar.bz2 Builds in mock cleanly > rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-10-i386/result/389-ds-base-1.2.1-1.fc10.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-10-i386/result/389-ds-base-1.2.1-1.fc10.i386.rpm 389-ds-base.i386: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/dirsrv 389-ds-base.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.2.1-1 1.2.1-1.fc10 389-ds-base.i386: W: incoherent-init-script-name dirsrv 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. For the first warning - the directory server does its own log rotation, so no need for logrotate. For the second warning - I have no idea - there is no .fc10 in the Changelog section For the third warning - yes, this is intentional that the file is named "dirsrv" and not the Fedora package name. -- 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