[Bug 188445] Review Request: bootconf

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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


bugzilla at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |medium
           Priority|normal                      |medium
            Product|Fedora Extras               |Fedora
            Version|devel                       |rawhide

tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2008-01-18 01:37 EST -------
It's been fifteen months since there was last activity on this ticket, and
twenty months since there was last any response from the submitter.

The package still builds, but it does elicit a few complaints from rpmlint
and will need tweaks for system changes in the past two years:

  bootconf.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog - 1.0-1
Changelog needs to indicate the version.

  bootconf.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL
The version of the GPL is required.

  bootconf.noarch: W: no-url-tag
Please unclude a URL: tag with a pointer to the upstream web site.

  bootconf-gui.noarch: W: no-documentation
Not a problem.

  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
These are OK.

  bootconf-gui.noarch: E: use-old-pam-stack /etc/pam.d/bootconf (line 10)
The pam_stack module isn't used these days; include should be used instead.

Also, the specfile is copyrighted and points to some other file for information.
 But I guess that file is buried in the tarball, which is rather suboptimal.  If
the specfile is under GPL then please include the required GPL notice.

-- 
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.