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=471915 --- Comment #15 from David Walluck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-11-24 10:22:11 EDT --- Here are my justifications for rpmlint warnings. If it's the same warning/error I don't list it twice. [EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint jbossweb2-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.src.rpm jbossweb2.src:86: E: hardcoded-library-path in /lib/lsb/init-functions jbossweb2.src:87: E: hardcoded-library-path in /lib/lsb/init-functions This file is in /lib on both i386 and x86_64. jbossweb2.src:145: W: unversioned-explicit-provides jsp21 jbossweb2.src:173: W: unversioned-explicit-provides servlet6 jbossweb2.src:174: W: unversioned-explicit-provides servlet25 The versions are in the names. jbossweb2.src: W: non-standard-group Networking/Daemons Fedora allows any Group tag. [EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint jbossweb2-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.noarch.rpm jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-gid /var/cache/jbossweb2/temp jbossweb jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/jbossweb2/temp 0775 jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-gid /var/lib/jbossweb2/webapps jbossweb jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/jbossweb2/webapps 0775 This is correct since it's a daemon, if we agree on the perms. jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/webapps /var/lib/jbossweb2/webapps jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/conf /etc/jbossweb2 jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/lib /usr/share/java/jbossweb2 jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/work /var/cache/jbossweb2/work jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/temp /var/cache/jbossweb2/temp jbossweb2.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/jbossweb2/logs /var/log/jbossweb2 I am not sure how to fix these, or what the actual problem is. jbossweb2.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/jbossweb2/tomcat-users.xml 0660 This file contains passwords, so it should not be world readable. jbossweb2.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm # clean tempdir and workdir on removal or upgrade /bin/rm -rf /var/cache/jbossweb2/work/* /var/cache/jbossweb2/temp/* This allows the rpm to be removed cleanly, but it's not typical to do this. What do you think? jbossweb2.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/jbossweb2 ${NAME} jbossweb2.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/jbossweb2 ${NAME} jbossweb2.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/jbossweb2 ${NAME} jbossweb2.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/jbossweb2 ${NAME} This uses a variable in case the name of the script is changed, but since NAME is NAME="$(basename $0)", it is fine. [EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint jbossweb2-admin-webapps-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.noarch.rpm jbossweb2-admin-webapps.noarch: W: no-documentation Documentation is in the main package. [EMAIL PROTECTED] result]$ rpmlint jbossweb2-lib-2.1.1-4.2.fc10.noarch.rpm jbossweb2-lib.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/java/jbossweb2/jbossweb2-servlet-2.5-api-2.1.1.jar ../jbossweb2-servlet-2.5-api-2.1.1.jar jbossweb2-lib.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/java/jbossweb2/jbossweb2-jsp-2.1-api-2.1.1.jar ../jbossweb2-jsp-2.1-api-2.1.1.jar This is because the links are actually in another package, but jbossweb2-lib Requires that package, so it's fine. jbossweb2-lib.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm if [ "$1" = "0" ]; then /bin/rm -f /usr/share/java/jbossweb2/\[commons-collections-tomcat5\].jar \ /usr/share/java/jbossweb2/\[commons-dbcp-tomcat5\].jar \ /usr/share/java/jbossweb2/\[commons-pool-tomcat5\].jar \ /usr/share/java/jbossweb2/\[ecj\].jar >/dev/null 2>&1 fi This is to clean dangling symlinks. Is it valid? -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review