Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sectool - A security audit system and intrusion detection system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428823 ------- Additional Comments From mitr@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-01-16 13:03 EST ------- * rpmlint output: > sectool-gui.noarch: W: no-documentation OK * License: The field was changed to GPLv2+, but the code still does not contain copyright notices specifying the intended license. The License: field might be sufficient - but just to be sure, please add a copyright header to each source file, per the RH copyright guidelines * macros: > Consider using macros for paths; at least you can > (make PREFIX=%{_prefix} ...and so on for other variables), > perhaps add more variables to the Makefile to remove other hard-coded > directory paths like /etc, /usr/bin and /var/lib/sectool and /usr/share -2 is not an improvement in this regard: macros are used in %files and hard-coded paths in the Makefile: if the macro values change, the build will break. For each path, either use a hard-coded path both in the Makefile and the spec, or use a macro in the spec and pass the macro value to the Makefile somehow. (If you decide this isn't worth it and revert to using hard-coded paths, I won't protest.) > Note, I didn't update web pages(wiki). If new rpm pass review, I'll do that. OK. (In the future, please don't change released tarballs like this - it might become quite a mess if different distributions use different tarballs with the same version number.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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