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=513239 --- Comment #6 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-27 15:41:07 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > * Rpmlint > - There are comments in the spec file to indicate that the permissions need to > be more restrictive than rpmlint wants because passwords are stored in those > config files so they cannot be world readable. It can not be applicable for files like /etc/horde/ansel/styles.php.dist. If you use such extra permissions - it must be minimum and commented. > - The xml files are not marked as no replace because they are replace during > upgrade and should not be edited by users. There one xml-file - /etc/horde/ansel/conf.xml. So, ok, if it configuration for horde provided by package this warning may be ignored. But in this case really it altogether should be marked as %config? > * License > - I have emailed upstream for clarity on the named files > - The carousel.js is from Prototype-UI http://www.prototype-ui.com/ which > according to the developer is not production ready Why??? Prototype is famous framework and have several stable releases - http://prototypejs.org/download And I think it should not be difficult to package... > * Dependency > - Ansel requires horde which in turn require PHP which in turn required httpd > which means the dependency will be resolved without explicitly requiring httpd No, it is not: $ rpm -qp --requires ansel-1.0-3.fc11.noarch.rpm /usr/bin/env /usr/bin/php config(ansel) = 1.0-3.fc11 horde >= 3 php-gd >= 4.3.0 php-pear(MDB2) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 You miss my additional point - should ansel require exactly httpd (implicit or explicit)? Meta "webserver" don't satisfactory us? -- 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