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=593125 --- Comment #1 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-05-19 07:56:12 EDT --- Fedora review - gridsite - 2010-05-19 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint 587812741769102067396616/result/gridsite/*.rpm gridsite.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US apache -> Apache, apace gridsite.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US httpd -> HTTP gridsite.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US apache -> Apache, apace gridsite.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US httpd -> HTTP gridsite.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/lib/gridsite/.gacl gridsite-gsexec.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Setuid -> Setup, Setting, Settled gridsite-gsexec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US setuid -> setup, setting, settled gridsite-gsexec.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /usr/sbin/gsexec root 04510 gridsite-gsexec.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/gsexec 04510 gridsite-gsexec.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/gsexec 04510 gridsite-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, untimely 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 8 warnings. Since the whole point of the gsexec binary is to be able to switch users, the fact that it has the setuid bit set is not an error. + Package named according to guidelines + Specfile named after package + The specified license "ASL 2.0" is a Fedora approved License ? The following files are indeed distributed under the Apache-2.0 license: - src/gsexec.c - src/gsexec.h - src/mod_gridsite.c (partly) - src/mod_ssl-private.h (partly) However, the rest of the files seems to be distributed under BSD. + LICENSE file is included as %doc + Spec file is written in legible English + Source matches upstream: $ cksum gridsite-1.5.18.src.tar.gz srpm/gridsite-1.5.18.src.tar.gz 891063198 213822 gridsite-1.5.18.src.tar.gz 891063198 213822 srpm/gridsite-1.5.18.src.tar.gz + Package builds in mock (Fedora 12) + BuildRequires are sane + ldconfig called appropriately + No bundled system libraries + Package owns the directories it creates + No duplicate files + Permissions are sane, and %files have %defattr There is one setuid binary, but it is put in a separate rpm so that only those who need it hve to install it. ? Specfile uses macros more or less consistently, however - it uses both %{_var}/lib/%{name} and %{_var}/lib/gridsite - it uses both %{_var}/lib and %{_sharedstatedir} ? Should the doxygen documentation be split off into a separate doc subpackage? + %doc is not runtime essential + headers and .so symlink are in -devel subpackage + -devel requires -libs with fully qualified version + No .la files + Package does not own other's directories + Installed filenames are valid UTF8 -- 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