[Bug 844192] Review Request: gksu-polkit - Command line utility to run programs as root

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844192

--- Comment #4 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt@xxxxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Many thanks for your hints. New files:
> 
> Spec URL: http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/gksu-polkit.spec
> SRPM URL:
> http://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/gksu-polkit-0.0.3-2.fc17.src.rpm
> 
> 
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > - The %post %postun macros are not necessary for the main package but rather
> > necessary for the libs package. This should be fixed by changing the lines
> > to:
> > %post libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
> > %postun libs -p /sbin/ldconfig
> > 
> > - RPMLint gives a binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath error, so I would look into
> > disabling rpath via %configure or using chrpath to fix this.
> 
> Doing so gives me the following errors:
> 
> gksu-polkit-libs.x86_64: E: postun-without-ldconfig
> /usr/lib64/libgksu-polkit.so.0.0.1
> This package contains a library and its %postun doesn't call ldconfig.
> 
> gksu-polkit-libs.x86_64: E: non-empty-%postun /sbin/ldconfig
> Scriptlets for the interpreter mentioned in the message should be empty. One
> common case where they are unintentionally not is when the specfile contains
> comments after the scriptlet and before the next section. Review and clean up
> the scriptlet contents if appropriate.

As the error message states, the later error is caused by the comment that is
after the %postun scriptlet but before the next section, or more specifically
this line:
>>>%files -f %{name}.lang

The former error seems to be caused by the latter error, as removing the
comment fixes both errors. It would be advisable to also remove any other
comments that cause rpmlint output, such as the macro-in-comment warnings from
the %find_lang line, as this can cause false positive or unintentional errors
(or even confusion) later on. It's also known to be "bad etiquette", though I
find that a tad pedantic.

> 
> 
> Regarding the FSF address I've informed the upstream developer, CC'ed to you.


Got it, thanks; it will be fixed when upstream decides to do so.



Looks Good though! Either tomorrow or the day after I'll attempt to give you a
review.

-- 
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



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]