Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591545 --- Comment #6 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-05-17 03:15:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > When you say Chen is right, does that mean you intended to drop the use of > epoch in your provides/obsoletes? Is there any point in specifying an epoch of > zero? I meant that packaging guidelines state that we should avoid using Epoch if possible. This was possible with this rename because it was enough to specify epoch in provides/obosletes, no need to actually specify one for this package. It was there from way back, probably when no guidelines on Epoch use existed. Current guidelines state (2nd link from Chen): If the provided package had an Epoch set, it must be preserved in both the Provides and Obsoletes. It may and should be removed from the actual new package. > On a side note for future reference, did you know that your two calls to > install on lines 71/72 and again on lines 83/84 can be combined into a single > call? For example, these two lines: > > install -d -m 755 foo_dir > install -p -m 644 bar_file foo_dir/bar_file > > Are equivalent to this one line: > > install -pD -T -m 644 bar_file foo_dir/bar_file Thanks, I'll keep it in mind :-) I suppose 2 commands were originally mkdir && cp and I just converted them to install. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: apache-commons-net Short Description: Internet protocol suite Java library Owners: sochotni Branches: InitialCC: -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review