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=555121 --- Comment #1 from Rob Crittenden <rcritten@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-19 16:39:12 EST --- Found the following rpmlint errors: % rpmlint -iv ../RPMS/x86_64/nss-pam-ldapd-0.7.2-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm nss-pam-ldapd.x86_64: I: checking nss-pam-ldapd.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /var/run/nslcd nslcd A file in this package is owned by a non standard user. Standard users are: root, bin, daemon, adm, lp, mail, news, uucp, gopher, ftp, oprofile, pkiuser, squid, pvm, named, postgres, mysql, nscd, rpcuser, rpc, netdump, vdsm, rpm, ntp, mailman, gdm, xfs, mailnull, apache, wnn, smmsp, puppet, tomcat, ldap, frontpage, nut, beagleindex, tss, piranha, prelude-manager, snortd, condor, pegasus, webalizer, haldaemon, vcsa, avahi, tcpdump, privoxy, sshd, radvd, arpwatch, fax, nocpulse, desktop, dbus, jonas, clamav, sabayon, polkituser, postfix, majordomo, quagga, exim, distcache, radiusd, hsqldb, dovecot, ident, nobody, qemu, ovirt, saned, nfsnobody. nss-pam-ldapd.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/nslcd.conf 0600 The file can't be read by everybody. If this is expected (for security reasons), contact your rpmlint distributor to get it added to the list of exceptions for your distro (or add it to your local configuration if you installed rpmlint from the source tarball). nss-pam-ldapd.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libnss_ldap.so A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. nss-pam-ldapd.x86_64: W: missing-lsb-keyword Required-Stop in /etc/rc.d/init.d/nslcd The package contains an init script that does not contain one of the LSB init script comment block convention keywords that are recommendable for all init scripts. If there is nothing to add to a keyword's value, include the keyword in the script with an empty value. Note that as of version 3.2, the LSB specification does not mandate presence of any keywords. nss-pam-ldapd.x86_64: W: missing-lsb-keyword Default-Stop in /etc/rc.d/init.d/nslcd The package contains an init script that does not contain one of the LSB init script comment block convention keywords that are recommendable for all init scripts. If there is nothing to add to a keyword's value, include the keyword in the script with an empty value. Note that as of version 3.2, the LSB specification does not mandate presence of any keywords. nss-pam-ldapd.x86_64: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/nslcd $prog The filename of your lock file in /var/lock/subsys/ is incoherent with your actual init script name. For example, if your script name is httpd, you have to use 'httpd' as the filename in your subsys directory. It is also possible that rpmlint gets this wrong, especially if the init script contains nontrivial shell variables and/or assignments. These cases usually manifest themselves when rpmlint reports that the subsys name starts a with '$'; in these cases a warning instead of an error is reported and you should check the script manually. nss-pam-ldapd.x86_64: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/nslcd $prog The filename of your lock file in /var/lock/subsys/ is incoherent with your actual init script name. For example, if your script name is httpd, you have to use 'httpd' as the filename in your subsys directory. It is also possible that rpmlint gets this wrong, especially if the init script contains nontrivial shell variables and/or assignments. These cases usually manifest themselves when rpmlint reports that the subsys name starts a with '$'; in these cases a warning instead of an error is reported and you should check the script manually. nss-pam-ldapd.x86_64: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/nslcd $prog The filename of your lock file in /var/lock/subsys/ is incoherent with your actual init script name. For example, if your script name is httpd, you have to use 'httpd' as the filename in your subsys directory. It is also possible that rpmlint gets this wrong, especially if the init script contains nontrivial shell variables and/or assignments. These cases usually manifest themselves when rpmlint reports that the subsys name starts a with '$'; in these cases a warning instead of an error is reported and you should check the script manually. nss-pam-ldapd.x86_64: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/nslcd $prog The filename of your lock file in /var/lock/subsys/ is incoherent with your actual init script name. For example, if your script name is httpd, you have to use 'httpd' as the filename in your subsys directory. It is also possible that rpmlint gets this wrong, especially if the init script contains nontrivial shell variables and/or assignments. These cases usually manifest themselves when rpmlint reports that the subsys name starts a with '$'; in these cases a warning instead of an error is reported and you should check the script manually. nss-pam-ldapd.x86_64: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/nslcd $prog The filename of your lock file in /var/lock/subsys/ is incoherent with your actual init script name. For example, if your script name is httpd, you have to use 'httpd' as the filename in your subsys directory. It is also possible that rpmlint gets this wrong, especially if the init script contains nontrivial shell variables and/or assignments. These cases usually manifest themselves when rpmlint reports that the subsys name starts a with '$'; in these cases a warning instead of an error is reported and you should check the script manually. nss-pam-ldapd.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name nslcd ('nss-pam-ldapd', 'nss-pam-ldapdd') The init script name should be the same as the package name in lower case, or one with 'd' appended if it invokes a process by that name. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review