Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: PolicyKit package review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245015 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-06-21 00:01 EST ------- ok, here comes a more formal checklist rpmlint output on PolicyKit-0.3-1.fc8.i386.rpm: E: PolicyKit non-standard-uid /var/run/PolicyKit polkit E: PolicyKit non-standard-gid /var/run/PolicyKit polkit E: PolicyKit non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/PolicyKit 0775 E: PolicyKit non-standard-uid /var/lib/PolicyKit polkit E: PolicyKit non-standard-gid /var/lib/PolicyKit polkit E: PolicyKit non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/PolicyKit 0775 E: PolicyKit non-standard-gid /usr/libexec/polkit-grant-helper polkit E: PolicyKit setgid-binary /usr/libexec/polkit-grant-helper polkit 02755 E: PolicyKit non-standard-executable-perm /usr/libexec/polkit-grant-helper 02755 The errors about uid/gid should be covered by the bug asking for a standard uid/gid The errors about permissions should probably be handled by adding a comment explaining why these permissions are necessary W: PolicyKit incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.3.0-1 0.3-1.fc8 This should be corrected W: PolicyKit invalid-license AFL/GPL I believe rpmlint is just dumb here W: PolicyKit conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/PolicyKit/PolicyKit.conf W: PolicyKit conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/pam.d/polkit What about these, David ? Is there any good reason not to make these noreplace ? rpmlint output on PolicyKit-docs-0.3-1.fc8.i386.rpm W: PolicyKit-docs invalid-license AFL/GPL see above W: PolicyKit one-line-command-in-%post /sbin/ldconfig W: PolicyKit one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig This has already been mentioned as something that should be changed rpmlint output on PolicyKit-devel-0.3-1.fc8.i386.rpm W: PolicyKit-devel no-documentation W: PolicyKit-devel invalid-license AFL/GPL the no-docs warning is ignorable, the other is already covered package name: follows upstream tarball name, ok spec file name: ok packaging guidelines: see comment #2 license: ok. Small typo in COPYING noticed in passing: "[...] may be under the GPL only or under the LGPG." license field: ok license file: ok American English: ok legibility: pretty good sources match upstream: ok buildable: ok excludearch: n/a build requires: complete locales: n/a ldconfig: is run relocatable: n/a directory ownership: - must require pam, for /etc/pam.d - must own /etc/PolicyKit, /usr/lib/PolicyKit, /usr/lib/PolicyKit/modules file list duplicates: ok file permissions: ok %clean: ok macro use: ok content: permissable doc subpackage: yes %doc: ok header files: ok static libs: n/a pc files: ok, see above for pkgconfig requirement shared libs: ok -devel requires: ok libtool archives: ok desktop files: n/a directory ownership again: see above %install cleans build root: yes filenames utf8: ok -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review