Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284 Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-12-20 14:18 EST ------- Full review: o rpmlint output: OK W: bcfg2 invalid-license BCFG Public License E: bcfg2 non-readable /etc/bcfg2.conf 0600 W: bcfg2-client invalid-license BCFG Public License E: bcfg2-client wrong-line-in-lsb-tag # installs configuration files served by bcfg2-server E: bcfg2-client wrong-line-in-lsb-tag # This is a client that installs the server provided E: bcfg2-client wrong-line-in-lsb-tag # Configuration. E: bcfg2-client subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/bcfg2 W: bcfg2-client incoherent-init-script-name bcfg2 W: bcfg2-server invalid-license BCFG Public License E: bcfg2-server non-readable /etc/bcfg2.key 0600 E: bcfg2-server wrong-line-in-lsb-tag # installs configuration files served by bcfg2-server invalid-license: may change to BSD, soon, anyway non-readable: rpmlint false positive wrong-line-in-lsb-tag: rpmlint false positive subsys-not-used: see Jeff's explenation above: non-daemon start script incoherent-init-script-name: OK o package naming: OK o specfile name: OK o guidelines: OK o open-source compatible license: todo o license field: todo o license in source: todo o specfile in American English: OK o specfile legible: OK o sources match upstream: OK (md5sum, timestamps diverge) o successfully compiles: OK o excluding archs (none): OK o BRs complete: OK o locale: OK o ldconfig (none needed): OK o relocatable package (no): OK o dir ownership: OK o %files duplicates (none): OK o sane permissions on files: OK o %clean: OK o consistent use of macros: OK o contains code: OK o doc subpackage (not needed): OK o %doc influences package (no): OK o *.pc files (none): OK o shared libs (none): OK o devel dependencies (no devel): OK o *.la files (none): OK o *.desktop file (no guis): OK o cross-ownership (none): OK The few todos are all about the new license which is about to be changed, so I'm preapproving on the assumption that upstream will switch to plain BSD licensing (according to our PM with the author). I'm also removing FE-LEGAL on the same assumption. :) Irrelevant nitpicking: Is %{_localstatedir} not preferred over %{_var}? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review