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=511246 Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <fdinitto@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <fdinitto@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-30 03:28:53 EDT --- rpmlint output: pacemaker.src:184: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ocf pacemaker.src:185: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d pacemaker.src:186: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d/pacemaker pacemaker.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 29, tab: line 3) pacemaker.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/pengine hacluster pacemaker.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/pengine haclient pacemaker.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/pengine 0750 pacemaker.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/lib/heartbeat/crm hacluster pacemaker.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/lib/heartbeat/crm haclient pacemaker.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/heartbeat/crm 0750 pacemaker.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/crm hacluster pacemaker.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /var/run/crm haclient pacemaker.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/crm 0750 pacemaker-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libcrmcluster.so.1.0.0 exit@xxxxxxxxxxx pacemaker-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libpengine.so.3.0.0 exit@xxxxxxxxxxx pacemaker-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libcib.so.1.0.1 exit@xxxxxxxxxxx All of the above have been discussed and properly explained. I have no objections to those. Might be nice to fix the mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs that was recently introduced but for sure it's not a blocker. OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+) OK - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. See below - Sources match upstream md5sum: 0737aaf01c73868fe006b4880ef2776e c9120a53a6ae.tar.gz 0737aaf01c73868fe006b4880ef2776e c9120a53a6ae.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot. OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install. OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun. OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}. OK - .la files are removed. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1565197 OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package obey's FHS standard (note execptions have been discussed and agreed upon). OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. NOTE: My mock doesn't work. Tested with koji scratch build and local build (see logs above) OK - Should build on all supported archs. (as above) OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. OK - Should have dist tag. OK - Should package latest version. OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin. Good to go. -- 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