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: distcc -- A free distributed C/C++ compiler system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174883 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-17 14:42 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=150315) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=150315&action=view) rpmlint log for distcc-2.18.3-3.7 Well, though I have not read the previous discussion on this bug report, I write here my first opinition. A. About rpmlint: A-1 for source: * W: distcc strange-permission distccd.sysv 0755 - Change to 0644. A-2 For binary: * W: distcc incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.18.3-4 2.18.3-3.7.fc7 - Very trivial... * W: distcc dangerous-command-in-%preun rm W: distcc dangerous-command-in-%trigger ln W: distcc dangerous-command-in-%trigger rm - The following script ---------------------------------------------------- %preun test "$1" -ne 0 || rm -f %pkgdatadir/bin/* ---------------------------------------------------- should be treated by %ghost files. And having symlinks marked as %ghost files is needed anyway, otherwise these symlinks are regarded as being not owned by any package. And "rm -f %pkgdatadir/bin/*" (all glob) is too dangerous. Remove only the files which should really be treated by this rpm. ---------------------------------------------------- [ ! -x /usr/bin/$c ] || ln -sf %_bindir/distcc %pkgdatadir/bin/$c ---------------------------------------------------- - Why do you use "/usr/bin/"$c (this is not macro) and "%_bindir"/distcc (here macro %_bindir is used)? - By the way, while "ln" and "rm" are marked as dangerous commands, "unlink" is not marked as such. * E: distcc-server non-standard-gid /var/log/distccd.log distcc E: distcc-server non-root-group-log-file /var/log/distccd.log distcc - Fot the latter rpmlint says: ----------------------------------------------------- If you need log files owned by a non-root group, just create a subdir in /var/log and put your log files in it. ----------------------------------------------------- Perhaps you have to create /var/log/distccd directory and move the log files under the directory, however I can see some other packages putting log files under /var/log with non-standard gid...... * W: distcc-server dangerous-command-in-%post chown - The corresponding scripts are: ----------------------------------------------------- %post server test -e '%logfile' || { touch '%logfile' chown root:%username '%logfile' chmod 0620 '%logfile' } ----------------------------------------------------- If the %logfile should always exist, then this should not be handled by %ghost, but should be handled by * this file should be touched at %install stage * should be handled by %verify(not md5 size mtime) * and chown call should be removed. * initrc file ----------------------------------------------------- W: distcc-server-sysv conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/distccd E: distcc-server-sysv executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/distccd ----------------------------------------------------- - Well, I remember this was discussed on fedora-????-list recently, and what was the conclusion?? Should rcinit file be marked as %config? (Is this really a %config file?) * Summary for -server-xinetd ------------------------------------------------------ W: distcc-server-xinetd summary-not-capitalized xinetd initscripts for the distcc daemon ------------------------------------------------------ - Simply change to "Xinetd initscripts...." + IMO the following rpmlint can be ignored. ----------------------------------------------------- W: distcc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/profile.d/distcc.sh W: distcc-server conffile-without-noreplace-flag /var/log/distccd.log E: distcc-server incoherent-logrotate-file /etc/logrotate.d/distccd W: distcc-server-sysv no-documentation E: distcc-server-sysv non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/distccd 0775 W: distcc-server-sysv incoherent-init-script-name distccd W: distcc-server-xinetd no-documentation ----------------------------------------------------- ... However, once please comment on these warnings. B. Scriptlets * For GTK+ icon cache - Well, please check again the scriptlets for "GTK+ icon cache" http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets C. Directory ownership ----------------------------------------------------- # ignore ownership of the %_datadir/icons/... directories; Core is # too broken to add good Requires(pre/postun). ----------------------------------------------------- - If you mind, you can simply add to -gnome package: Requires: hicolor-icon-theme -- 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