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=517983 --- Comment #3 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-20 15:22:29 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > REVIEW: > > - rpmlint is not silent (I added numbering for the sake of simplicity); > > [petro@Sulaco ~]$ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/ppc/3proxy-* > 1. 3proxy.ppc: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/3proxy.cfg > 2. 3proxy.ppc: E: script-without-shebang /etc/3proxy.cfg > 3. 3proxy.ppc: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/3proxy > 4. 3proxy.ppc: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/3proxy > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. > [petro@Sulaco ~]$ > > 1st and 2nd warnings should be fixed - just use 644 as a parameter for > "install" utility (seems that this is a typo) Yes, this is typo. I've replace config at end of packaging :) > 3rd may be omitted, but it's a generally good idea to provide add-on for > logrotate in such cases. According to http://3proxy.ru/0.6/Release.notes.txt (see chapter 3) log rotation possibility included in main functionality. > 4th should be fixed - just replace "# chkconfig: 2345 02 98" with "# chkconfig: > - 02 98" (note the dash sign instead of 2345). Fixed. > Missing BR dos2unix. Please, try to build in koji before submitting Review > Requests. Sorry. BR dos2unix added. > + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual licenses. Not exact :) So, you dont answer on my first question - how I should pint license LGPL >= 2.1 (not 2.0)?? -- 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