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=466183 --- Comment #1 from Emily Ratliff <emilyr@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-08 18:14:47 EDT --- $ rpmlint sblim-sfcb.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint sblim-sfcb-1.3.2-1.src.rpm sblim-sfcb.src: W: non-standard-group System Tools 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint sblim*rpm sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcCertificateAuthentication.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcFileRepository.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcProfileProvider.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcCimXmlCodec.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcBasicPAMAuthentication.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcClassProviderMem.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcClassProvider.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcIndCIMXMLHandler.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcBasicAuthentication.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcBrokerCore.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcInteropServerProvider.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcInteropProvider.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcInternalProvider.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcUtil.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcHttpAdapter.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcQualifierProvider.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libcimcClientSfcbLocal.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcObjectImplSwapI32toP32.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsfcClassProviderGz.so sblim-sfcb.i386: W: non-standard-group System Tools sblim-sfcb.i386: W: service-default-enabled /etc/init.d/sfcb sblim-sfcb.i386: W: incoherent-init-script-name sfcb sblim-sfcb-schema.i386: W: no-documentation sblim-sfcb-schema.i386: W: non-standard-group System Tools sblim-sfcb-schema.i386: W: invalid-license Distributed Management Task Force 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 25 warnings. I believe that the warnings about the libraries are all false positives because sfcb loads support libraries as needed. They are not development libraries. (19 warnings) I left the init script named sfcb rather than sblim-sfcb because that is what upstream does and that is what other community distros do. (2 warnings) My understanding is that the group name doesn't really matter. (2 warnings) The schema is copyright DMTF, see Release notes http://www.dmtf.org/standards/cim/cim_schema_v219/ReleaseNotes.html (1 warning) I left the schema package as a subpackage follow upstream's lead - advise on whether this is correct or not would be appreciated. -- 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