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: galternatives - Alternatives Configurator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220860 ------- Additional Comments From dakingun@xxxxxxxxx 2006-12-29 00:40 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > Please check the packages you created by rpmlint > > * This seems to be a noarch rpm Yes, you're right, changed it to be so. > * Scripts with shebang should have executable permission > (or, if 0644 permissons are correct, shebangs should be removed) This is _strictly_ _not_ necessary (I've seen other reviews ignoring these kind of warning on python packages); anyways to make everyone happy, I've sed out the shebangs. > * .pyo files are not marked as ghosts due to SELinux issues. Right, fixed. > * Please check Requires > - This package should require pam explicitly It does already rightly requires usermode, which in turn explicitly requires pam. Besides other packages in Extras that uses consolehelper only requires usermode. New file with changes uploaded, thanks for the review. Spec URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/galternatives/galternatives.spec SRPM URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/galternatives/galternatives-0.13.4-2.src.rpm -- 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