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: apmd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225252 bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-02-05 12:03 EST ------- rpmlint on srpm: apmd.src:17: W: prereq-use chkconfig The use of PreReq is deprecated. In the majority of cases, a plain Requires is enough and the right thing to do. Sometimes Requires(pre), Requires(post), Requires(preun) and/or Requires(postun) can also be used instead of PreReq. Fix. apmd.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Advanced Power Management (APM) BIOS utilities for laptops. Summary ends with a dot. Fix. apmd.src: W: invalid-license GPL The value of the License tag was not recognized. Known values are: "Adobe", "AFL", "AGPLv1", "AGPLv3", "AMPAS BSD", "ARL", "ASL 1.0", "ASL 1.0+", "ASL 1.1", "ASL 1.1+", "ASL 2.0", "ASL 2.0+", "APSL 2.0", "APSL 2.0+", "Artistic 2.0", "Artistic clarified", "BitTorrent", "Boost", "BSD", "BSD with advertising", "CeCILL", "CDDL", "CPL", "Condor", "Copyright only", "Cryptix", "Crystal Stacker", "EPL", "eCos", "EFL 2.0", "EFL 2.0+", "EU Datagrid", "FTL", "Giftware", "Glide", "gnuplot", "GPL+", "GPL+ or Artistic", "GPLv2+ or Artistic", "GPLv2", "GPLv2 with exceptions", "GPLv2+", "GPLv2+ with exceptions", "GPLv3", "GPLv3 with exceptions", "GPLv3+", "GPLv3+ with exceptions", "IBM", "IJG", "ImageMagick", "iMatix", "Imlib2", "Intel ACPI", "Interbase", "ISC", "Jabber", "JasPer", "LGPLv2", "LGPLv2 with exceptions", "LGPLv2+", "LGPLv3", "LGPLv3+", "libtiff", "LPL", "LPPL", "mecab-ipadic", "MIT", "MPLv1.0", "MPLv1.0+", "MPLv1.1", "MPLv1.1+", "NCSA", "NGPL", "NOSL", "Netscape", "Nokia", "OpenLDAP", "OpenPBS", "OReilly", "OSL 1.0", "OSL 1.0+", "OSL 1.1", "OSL 1.1+", "OSL 2.0", "OSL 2.0+", "OSL 3.0", "OSL 3.0+", "OpenSSL", "Phorum", "PHP", "Public Domain", "Python", "QPL", "RPSL", "Ruby", "Sleepycat", "SISSL", "SLIB", "SPL", "TCL", "UCD", "Vim", "VNLSL", "VSL", "W3C", "WTFPL", "wxWindows", "xinetd", "Zend", "ZPLv1.0", "ZPLv1.0+", "ZPLv2.0", "ZPLv2.0+", "ZPLv2.1", "ZPLv2.1+", "zlib", "CDL", "FBSDDL", "GFDL", "IEEE", "OFSFDL", "Open Publication", "CC-BY", "CC-BY-SA", "DSL", "Free Art", "Arphic", "Baekmuk", "Bitstream Vera", "mplus", "OFL", "STIX", "Utopia", "XANO", "Redistributable, no modification permitted", "Freely redistributable without restriction". Fix, should be GPLv2+ apmd.src: W: no-url-tag The URL tag is missing. Fix. apmd.src: W: strange-permission apmscript 0755 A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. apmd.src: W: strange-permission apmd.init 0755 A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. apmd.src: W: strange-permission laptopmode 0755 A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. Ok. apmd.i386: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/apmd Executables must not be marked as config files because that may prevent upgrades from working correctly. If you need to be able to customize an executable, make it for example read a config file in /etc/sysconfig. apmd.i386: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/sysconfig/apm-scripts/laptopmode Executables must not be marked as config files because that may prevent upgrades from working correctly. If you need to be able to customize an executable, make it for example read a config file in /etc/sysconfig. apmd.i386: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/sysconfig/apm-scripts/apmscript Executables must not be marked as config files because that may prevent upgrades from working correctly. If you need to be able to customize an executable, make it for example read a config file in /etc/sysconfig. These are fine for this package. apmd.i386: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/apmd A configuration file is stored in your package without the noreplace flag. A way to resolve this is to put the following in your SPEC file: %config(noreplace) /etc/your_config_file_here apmd.i386: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/sysconfig/apm-scripts/apmscript A configuration file is stored in your package without the noreplace flag. A way to resolve this is to put the following in your SPEC file: %config(noreplace) /etc/your_config_file_here apmd.i386: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/sysconfig/apm-scripts/laptopmode A configuration file is stored in your package without the noreplace flag. A way to resolve this is to put the following in your SPEC file: %config(noreplace) /etc/your_config_file_here apmd.i386: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/apmd The service is enabled by default after "chkconfig --add"; for security reasons, most services should not be. Use "-" as the default runlevel in the init script's "chkconfig:" line and/or remove the "Default-Start:" LSB keyword to fix this if appropriate for this service. apmd.i386: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/apmd The service is enabled by default after "chkconfig --add"; for security reasons, most services should not be. Use "-" as the default runlevel in the init script's "chkconfig:" line and/or remove the "Default-Start:" LSB keyword to fix this if appropriate for this service. These are also fine. Otherwise, looks good, no other blockers. -- 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