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: bootconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] | |mta.com) | ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-02 16:34 EST ------- Sorry, I was just doing triage on these old tickets, trying to find out whether the submitters were still interested. But this seems pretty simple, and most of the comments above seem to have been addressed. This builds fine on current F9/rawhide; rpmlint is down to: bootconf.src: W: strange-permission bootconf.spec 0600 I don't particularly care about this as long as it's not 666 or something like that. bootconf-gui.noarch: W: no-documentation bootconf-gui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pam.d/bootconf bootconf-gui.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/security/console.apps/bootconf All addressed as OK above. The specfile still refers to a file which doesn't exist when you look at the srpm. You have to realize that you need to unpack the tarball and look there for the license file. I brought the topic on fedora-packaging and nobody else stated an opinion so I won't block on it though I do think it's suboptimal. (Honestly there's not much that's copyrightable in a specfile anyway.) If you're going to use the macro-ized forms of things like %{__make} then you should use %{__rm} and %{__cat} as well. There are a couple of issues with the scriptlets. Firstly, for the scriptlets you have, you need fine-grained dependencies for desktop-file-utils (like "Requires(pre):". However, the desktop-database section of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets has some explanatory text about making the scriptlets so that they don't depend on desktop-file-utils ; can you check that page and update accordingly? I will also say that I understand previous comments about this duplicating existing functionality, but I don't really have a problem with that. If there were a hard rule against it, we wouldn't have apt and such in the distro. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
