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 hliu@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hliu@xxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From hliu@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-06-27 01:53 EST ------- This is a pre-review for convincing one of the sponsors of approving my application: I ran rpmlint against SRPM of the latest redhat-lsb, and I got following errors and warnings: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/lsb/install_initd A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}. E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/lsb/remove_initd A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}. E: hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/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}. E: hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/lsb/install_initd A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}. E: hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/lsb/remove_initd A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}. E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/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}. 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}. 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'. W: invalid-license GPL The value of the License tag was not recognized. Known values are: "AFL", "Affero GPL", "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 clarified", "Boost", "BSD with advertising", "BSD", "CeCILL", "CDDL", "CPL", "Condor", "Cryptix", "EPL", "eCos", "EFL 2.0", "EFL 2.0+", "EU Datagrid", "GPL+", "GPLv2", "GPLv2+", "GPLv3", "GPLv3+", "IBM", "iMatix", "Intel ACPI", "Interbase", "Jabber", "LaTeX", "LGPL+", "LGPLv2", "LGPLv2 with exceptions", "LGPLv2+", "LGPLv3", "LGPLv3+", "LPL", "mecab-ipadic", "MIT", "MPLv1.0", "MPLv1.0+", "MPLv1.1", "MPLv1.1+", "NCSA", "NGPL", "NOSL", "Netscape", "Nokia", "OpenLDAP", "OSL 1.0", "OSL 1.0+", "OpenSSL", "Phorum", "PHP", "Public Domain", "Python", "QPL", "RPSL", "Ruby", "Sleepycat", "SMLNJL", "SISSL", "SPL", "Vim", "VNLSL", "VSL", "W3C", "WTFPL", "wxWindows", "xinetd", "Zend", "ZPLv1.0", "ZPLv1.0+", "ZPLv2.0", "ZPLv2.0+", "zlib", "CDL", "FBSDDL", "GFDL", "Open Publication", "CC-BY", "CC-BY-SA", "DSL", "Free Art", "Arphic", "SIL Open Font", "Redistributable, no modification permitted", "Freely redistributable without restriction". -- 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