https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269609 --- Comment #5 from Randy Barlow <rbarlow@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #3) > - Permissions on files are set properly. > Note: See rpmlint output I didn't realize that rpmlint was meant to be run against the packages and not the spec file, so I apologize for not catching some of this myself. rpmlint said there were no errors against the spec file when I tried that before, but I now see these same errors against the srpm and rpm. Good to know! > I noticed these were intentional but it may help to describe in comments why > the special permissions are necessary (more detail in rpmlint output) I adjusted the permissions a little bit, but rpmlint is still upset at me. Since this is backup software it manages sensitive information about other computers, and that is why I felt the need to protect much of the data. I added comments to the spec file to explain why I chose the permissions I did. What do you think, given those comments? > - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel > > I'm questioning this one, assuming this package is both python 2 and 3 > compatible, and you're using %{_python}, then you would want the build > requirement to be whichever python is the default for that system. If it's > not python3 compatible we'll need to specify python2 everywhere. I think I'm missing something here. I don't see the string "devel" in my spec file. Am I doing something that is bringing this requirement in automatically? This package is only Python 2 currently - do I need to do something different than I currently am doing to make that clear? > - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > Note: warning: File listed twice: /etc/ari-backup/ari-backup.conf.yaml > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles This one ended up being confusing to figure out, but I think I've got it now. It ended up being a mistake to have a path and a path's parent path listed. I reduced that section down to two lines and the complaints have disappeared. > - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) > in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) > for the package is included in %license. Fixed. > If it's important for the executables to only be readable by root, I wonder > if they should be in /usr/sbin instead? This package only includes one executable - the cron job. The cron job looks at /etc/ari-backup/jobs.d/ for executable files and runs any of them that it finds (this is the upstream design). I will post the remaining rpmlint output I still see with inline comments explaining what I think about it in my next comment. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review