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=500746 --- Comment #4 from Rich Megginson <rmeggins@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-18 16:19:24 EDT --- Updated Source URL: http://port389.org/sources/389-admin-1.1.7.tar.bz2 md5sum 389-admin-1.1.7.tar.bz2 81c41383af361e5591650edb38c3f3d8 389-admin-1.1.7.tar.bz2 sha1sum 389-admin-1.1.7.tar.bz2 f1ac01ab09afb65d929f4552951240a1c246971d 389-admin-1.1.7.tar.bz2 SRPM URL: http://rmeggins.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/389-admin-1.1.7-5.src.rpm Other files mentioned in Source in the spec file are in http://rmeggins.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview 389-admin.src: W: strange-permission 389-admin-git.sh 0775 - Fixed - see new SRPM above 389-admin.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post chmod - this is to work around a bug in rpm - if you mark a file/directory as config(noreplace) rpm will preserve the file contents, but not the ownership/permissions. 389-admin.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name dirsrv-admin - this is intentional - we did not want the service name to be the same as the package name because we knew we were going to change the package name 389-admin.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libds-admin-serv.so.0.0.0 PR_vsnprintf - How can I fix these? Do they need to be fixed? AFAICT fedora-ds-admin has been running with this "problem" for years with no ill effects. -- 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