Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: mlsutils

------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-05-16 13:42 EST -------
Quick partial review:

- bad: rpmlint fails -- see below
- bad: package naming seems weird -- why mlsutils, and not dev_allocator?
         and why version 1.1, and not 0.5?
- not sure: spec name may or may not be good, depending on package name
- bad: some of the guidelines not met -- for example, Vendor is set
- good: license is fine
- good: license matches
- bad: license not included
- good: spec is English
- good: spec is legible
- good: source matches -- both md5sum 9aea61daf9017e800ca025b50c69ee6b
- good: package builds, once BuildRequires added
- good: no excludes
- bad: BuildRequires missing for at least:


[EMAIL PROTECTED] i386]$ rpmlint mlsutils-1.1-1.i386.rpm
W: mlsutils incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4-2 1.1-1
W: mlsutils conffile-without-noreplace-flag
W: mlsutils conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/dev_allocation
E: mlsutils executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/dev_allocation
E: mlsutils setuid-binary /usr/bin/dev_allocator root 04755
E: mlsutils non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/dev_allocator 04755
E: mlsutils non-executable-script /usr/share/devallocation/classes/template 0644
E: mlsutils non-executable-script /usr/share/devallocation/classes/cups 0644
E: mlsutils no-status-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/dev_allocation
W: mlsutils no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/dev_allocation
W: mlsutils service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/dev_allocation
W: mlsutils incoherent-init-script-name dev_allocation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] i386]$ rpmlint mlsutils-devel-1.1-1.i386.rpm
W: mlsutils-devel no-dependency-on mlsutils
W: mlsutils-devel no-documentation

Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

Fedora-package-review mailing list

Reply via email to