[Bug 208250] Review Request: piklab - Development environment for applications based on PIC and dsPIC microcontrollers

[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: piklab - Development environment for applications based on PIC and dsPIC microcontrollers


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208250





------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp  2006-09-29 06:57 EST -------
Okay. Full review for piklab.

1. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines

* Use rpmlint
W: piklab dangling-relative-symlink \
   /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/piklab/common ../doc/common
   - Well, this warning itself is no problem, however, the problem
     is that this symlink is broken.
     Perhaps this should point to ../common  .

2. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines :
   = Nothing.

3. Other things I have noticed:
   - Well, 

/etc/security/console.perms.d/pickit1.perms
/etc/security/console.perms.d/pickit2.perms

     These two files are same. Acutally spec file says:
%{__install} -pm 644 %{SOURCE3} \
   %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/security/console.perms.d/pickit1.perms
%{__install} -pm 644 %{SOURCE3} \
   %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/security/console.perms.d/pickit2.perms

   I suspect only one of these two are necessary.
   Also, while this is not documented, the files under
   /etc/security/console.perms.d/ seem to have the names like
   <number>-<specific name>.perms (like 50-default.perms).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.