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=226663 --- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-26 18:07:21 EDT --- Thanks for working on this. I checked out the current devel branch; it builds fine; rpmlint says: ypbind.src: W: strange-permission ypbind.init 0755 I don't understand why rpmlint is complaining here. This seems fine to me. ypbind.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.20.4-9 ['3:1.20.4-9.fc10', '3:1.20.4-9'] Again, this seems quite OK. I'm guessing that it is complaining about not seeing the epoch in the changelog version, but don't think we generally add it there. So all of that looks bogus. I assume that the OTHER_YPBIND_OPTS thing is something to be set in /etc/sysconfig/network instead of being edited into the initscript. The changes to the package look good; packaging-wise I have no complaints. It's a bit odd seeing %{PACKAGE_VERSION} in the spec instead of %{version}; I've never seen it before but it seems to work well enough. Any idea why autoreconf is run? There's been a bunch of discussion about whether this should ever be run in a package, and while I don't fully understand that discussion, I do think it would be good to ensure that the autoreconf call is really needed and to add comments to the spec as appropriate. I note that rpmdiff shows only timestamp differences between a build that calls autoreconf and one that doesn't. As for the initscript patch in comment #7, it seems correct on its face but it's a bit tough to read with only a non-context diff and I'm not really an expert with the whole LSB init comment block thing anyway. Unfortunately I no longer have any vestige of my NIS infrastructure around so I can't test this at all. So really the only open issue I see is the autoreconf thing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review