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=538057 Ruediger Landmann <r.landm...@redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |r.landm...@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review?, | |needinfo?(msu...@redhat.com | |) --- Comment #4 from Ruediger Landmann <r.landm...@redhat.com> 2011-03-08 23:09:49 EST --- Thanks Miroslav for attending to the issues that Christoph raised, or explaining why you would not do so. The package looks good now, but because it has been over a year with no more review, I note that there is a new version available upstream. I assume it is this version that you want to ship, so please generate a new SRPM based on 5.3.7 and I will approve it if no new issues appear. Cheers Rudi - = N/A / = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [/] Rpmlint output is clean: $ rpmlint SPECS/rhnmd.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint SRPMS/rhnmd-5.3.5-1.fc14.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/rhnmd-5.3.5-1.fc14.noarch.rpm rhnmd.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/sbin/rhnmd sshd rhnmd.noarch: E: non-readable /var/lib/nocpulse/.ssh/authorized_keys 0600L rhnmd.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/lib/nocpulse/.ssh rhnmd.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/nocpulse/.ssh 0700L rhnmd.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /var/lib/nocpulse/.ssh rhnmd.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rhnmd rhnmd.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre rm rhnmd.noarch: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/rhnmd rhnmd.noarch: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/rhnmd 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings. * all these issues have already been discussed and explained. It would be nice to have at least a basic manpage in there, even if it referred to other Spacewalk documentation for more detail, but I don't consider this a blocker. [/] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [/] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [/] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Language specific items [/] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [/] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: GPLv2 [/] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [/] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [/] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. (md5sum 87d7f27b7ddcd1c1140192fb6ac746c0) [/] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2896478 [/] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [/] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly (with the %find_lang macro) [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [/] Package does not bundle copies of system libraries [/] Package is not relocatable. [/] Package must own all directories that it creates. [/] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [/] Permissions on files are set properly [/] %files section includes a %defattr(...) line [/] Package consistently uses macros. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [/] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] -devel packages require base package with full versioning. [/] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [/] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [/] Filenames are valid UTF-8 -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
