Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462638 David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |needinfo?(clumens@xxxxxxxxx | |m) --- Comment #1 from David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-09-17 15:58:37 EDT --- Spec file looks good. Review process requires checking the MUST list for the packaging guidelines and running rpmlint on the RPMS and spec file. Here's what I found: anaconda-yum-plugins.noarch: W: no-documentation At least a copy of the license file should be in the package, per the guidelines. anaconda-yum-plugins.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/yum/pluginconf.d/blacklist.conf anaconda-yum-plugins.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/yum/pluginconf.d/whiteout.conf Mark these as %config(noreplace)? anaconda-yum-plugins.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/yum-plugins/blacklist.py 0644 anaconda-yum-plugins.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/yum-plugins/whiteout.py 0644 Yeah, not sure about this. anaconda-yum-plugins.noarch: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Or this. anaconda-yum-plugins.src:36: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/yum-plugins/* Package guidelines say this should be %{_libdir}/yum-plugins/* anaconda-yum-plugins.src: W: strange-permission anaconda-yum-plugins.spec 0600 Now we're just splitting hairs. 0644? Man, I feel like a tool. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review