https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382875 --- Comment #3 from Jens Lody <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions The cause for the 0700 file-permissions should be documented in spec-file. ========================================================================= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/psad See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names Obviously fals-positive for unretiremnent. ========================================================================= [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 63 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jens/reviews/rawhide/1382875-psad/licensecheck.txt Not sure about the two strl*.c files with BSD3 license, but I guess they should be mentioned in license-tag ========================================================================= [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/logrotate.d(samba- common, logrotate, ppp, sssd-common) Is "%dir /etc/logrotate.d" really needed ? ========================================================================= [?]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). That's more or less) matter of taste and /etc is obviously shorter than %{_sysconfdir}, so it's allowed by the guidelines. ========================================================================= [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. A comment is missing in spec/and patch-file. ========================================================================= [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Not tested/testable. ========================================================================= spelling errors are mostly false positives. ========================================================================= psad.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm * 700 psad.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm * 700 See above ========================================================================= psad.x86_64: E: dir-or-file-in-var-run * psad.x86_64: E: non-readable * 700 Covered by conf-file in tmpfiles.d and %ghost ========================================================================= psad.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/psad/LICENSE psad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/psad-2.4.3/psad.h psad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/psad-2.4.3/psad_funcs.c psad-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/psad-2.4.3/kmsgsd.c Upstream should be informed, the source/header-files can be patched, but there is no need to. The LICENSE-file should not be changed. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx