https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310092 --- Comment #25 from Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Ralf Senderek from comment #22) > (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #21) > > > > - 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. > > Note: License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license > > See: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > > This is due to a Fedora specific guideline to put licenses in > > /usr/share/license > > instead of /usr/share/doc to reduce install size for space limited targets > > like arm. > > Might be best to remove the license stuff from your makefile and use > > relative paths > > instead. > > To be honest, I don't know how to handle this. The COPYING file is already > marked as %license. Would it be necessary to move them to > /usr/share/license and leave the mark as %license? I'm pretty sure the license file must be installed to /usr/share/license... The easiest solution would be to move them in %install after make install and update your paths in %files > > > > - cryptobone.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid > > /usr/lib/cryptobone/libcl.so.3.4.3 > > $ rpmlint -I missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid > > missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid: > > This executable is calling setuid and setgid without setgroups or > > initgroups. > > There is a high probability this means it didn't relinquish all groups, and > > this would be a potential security issue to be fixed. Seek POS36-C on the > > web > > for details about the problem. > > For weeks I have been trying to find out what rpmlint thinks the problem > may be here, and I have found nothing substantial on the web since that could > shed some light on what's required. I suppose this is a false-positive. > I'm inclined to ignore this error. Yeah, I just wanted to bring it up since we need to address it (even if the decision is to do nothing). > > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > > Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/init.d, > > /usr/share/icons/default, /usr/share/doc/cryptobone\ > > Do we need the init.d file since we have a systemd service file? > > Well yes, we need /etc/init.d so I added > %dir /etc/init.d > (see comments in the spec file (release 7)) Ok, I see your comment in the spec file... I'll need some time to digest this but I'm pretty sure it's against the guidelines to provide both a systemd and SysV startup file. Is the problem that the SysV files does a lot of things that the systemd file does not? I know there was a lot of pain during the SystemD migration because SysV was supposed to be used for starting and stopping the daemon but because it used shell scripting a lot of upstreams used (some would say abused) that fact to have it do much more. -- 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