[Bug 435514] Review Request: lbrickbuster2 - Brickbuster arcade game

[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: lbrickbuster2 - Brickbuster arcade game


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435514





------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl  2008-03-02 17:06 EST -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> + for good, - for bad, ? for questionable
> 
> MUST Items:
> ? rpmlint:
>   lbrickbuster2.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/lbrickbuster2 
> 02551
>   lbrickbuster2.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/lbrickbuster2 
> 02551

This is the same permission scheme the gnome-games package uses for sgid games
games, and these are the permissions as used for this package by freshrpms for a
long time, but I'm happy to change them to 02755 if people like that better
(which will still make rpmlint complain btw)

> - consistent use of macros (you mix $VARIABLES and %{variables})

Erm, no I don't atleast not in a way thats not allowed by the guidelines. The
only $ variable I use is $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, and I don't use %{buildroot} anywhere,
so no mixing, the guidelines talk about using 2 different ways to access the
_same_ variable. As for using $RPM_BUILD_ROOT versus %{buildroot}, the
guidelines leave this up to the packager, and AFAIK most people prefer
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT, that is for example which is used in the specfile templates
which are part of rpmdevtools.

> Clean up the macros
I would love to, if you can tell me whats wrong exactly.

> and assure me that the permissions are OK
The permissions are OK.




-- 
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, or are watching someone who is.