Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: redhat-lsb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226363 panemade@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(llim@xxxxxxxxxx) ------- Additional Comments From panemade@xxxxxxxxx 2007-11-19 01:46 EST ------- time to review this package again. First we try to resolve rpmlint messages that are possible for us. here is rpmlint on redhat-lsb-3.1-19.fc9 redhat-lsb.i386: W: dangling-relative-symlink /lib/ld-lsb.so.3 ld-linux.so.2 The relative symbolic link points nowhere. redhat-lsb.i386: E: zero-length /etc/lsb-release.d/core-3.1-ia32 redhat-lsb.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/lsb-release.d/core-3.1-ia32 A non-executable file in your package is being installed in /etc, but is not a configuration file. All non-executable files in /etc should be configuration files. Mark the file as %config in the spec file. redhat-lsb.i386: E: non-readable /usr/sbin/redhat_lsb_trigger.i386 0700 The file can't be read by everybody. If this is expected (for security reasons), contact your rpmlint distributor to get it added to the list of exceptions for your distro (or add it to your local configuration if you installed rpmlint from the source tarball). redhat-lsb.i386: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/redhat_lsb_trigger.i386 0700 A standard executable should have permission set to 0755. If you get this message, it means that you have a wrong executable permissions in some files included in your package. redhat-lsb.i386: E: zero-length /etc/lsb-release.d/graphics-3.1-noarch redhat-lsb.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/lsb-release.d/graphics-3.1-noarch A non-executable file in your package is being installed in /etc, but is not a configuration file. All non-executable files in /etc should be configuration files. Mark the file as %config in the spec file. redhat-lsb.i386: E: zero-length /etc/lsb-release.d/graphics-3.1-ia32 redhat-lsb.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/lsb-release.d/graphics-3.1-ia32 A non-executable file in your package is being installed in /etc, but is not a configuration file. All non-executable files in /etc should be configuration files. Mark the file as %config in the spec file. redhat-lsb.i386: W: dangling-relative-symlink /bin/mailx mail The relative symbolic link points nowhere. redhat-lsb.i386: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/lsb/install_initd ../../../sbin/chkconfig The relative symbolic link points nowhere. redhat-lsb.i386: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/lsb/remove_initd ../../../sbin/chkconfig The relative symbolic link points nowhere. redhat-lsb.i386: E: zero-length /etc/lsb-release.d/core-3.1-noarch redhat-lsb.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/lsb-release.d/core-3.1-noarch A non-executable file in your package is being installed in /etc, but is not a configuration file. All non-executable files in /etc should be configuration files. Mark the file as %config in the spec file. redhat-lsb.i386: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/sbin/redhat_lsb_trigger.i386 The package installs a statically linked binary or object file. ==>Usually this is a packaging bug. If not, contact your rpmlint distributor about this so that this error gets included in the exception file for rpmlint and will not be flagged as a packaging bug in the future (or add it to your local configuration if you installed rpmlint from the source tarball). redhat-lsb.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share. redhat-lsb.src:437: E: hardcoded-library-path in /lib/lsb A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}. ==> is this really needed? redhat-lsb.src:540: W: macro-in-%changelog endif Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. ==> update this in SPEC. can you please provide your comments on which rpmlint messages can't be resolved for this package and which can be resolved so that you can update them in SPEC? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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