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=612581 --- Comment #4 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-05 09:01:09 EDT --- (In reply to comment #0) > SPEC: > http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spacewalk-backend/spacewalk-backend.spec > SRPM: > http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/spacewalk-backend/spacewalk-backend-1.1.29-2.el6.src.rpm > > Description: > Generic program files needed by the Spacewalk server machines. > This package includes the common code required by all servers/proxies. > > Scratch build: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2305031 > > Beware of a lot rpmlint warnings. I'm going to explain them: > > spacewalk-backend.noarch: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/rhn > it is just directory, all files and logrotate scripts are handled by > subpackages No problem > spelling-error > all are false negatives OK > conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rhn/satellite-httpd/conf/rhn/* > we track them as config files, but want them to be replaced during upgrade, no > customization should be placed in these files > > non-conffile-in-etc /etc/rhn/default/* > they are not config files, but rather templates for customizing > /etc/rhn/rhn.conf for more details see BZ 523631 Then I believe these files should go into %{_datadir} not %{_sysconfdir}. FHS seems to agree with me: "The /usr/share hierarchy is for all read-only architecture independent data files." Other packages are using similar scheme, when example configs are stored in /usr/share and actual configuration in /etc. But as you said on IRC this has to be fixed upstream. > explicit-lib-dependency python-hashlib > explicit-lib-dependency spacewalk-backend-xml-export-libs > false negatives cause by lib suffix of required packages No problem On to the official review... -- 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