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=673784 --- Comment #26 from Kalev Lember <kalev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-05-06 07:07:37 EDT --- The Provides: mingw32() and Provides: mingw64() would probably look better in alphabetical order. Sorry for not noticing it earlier, but the Requires: setup, rpm, rpmlint and BuildRequires: rpmlint were all dropped from mingw32-filesystem a while ago: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=mingw32-filesystem.git;a=commit;h=d8bcc2f5ac2ba0cde140fe0682286dfaf5c2a2fb http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=mingw32-filesystem.git;a=commit;h=7034ac899f074b4bed02090fb271ecb10d7266fb I think the rationale for NOT Requiring 'setup' and 'rpm' was that these are all so low level packages that they are in all Fedora installations and therefore it's not worth requiring them, similar to not requiring the 'filesystem' package. With rpmlint there's a different story. Rpmlint used to be required dependency because we install a file in /etc/rpmlint/. However, directory ownership guidelines were updated a while ago and now it's perfectly fine to have multiple directory ownership on /etc/rpmlint/ in order to avoid needlessly dragging in the rpmlint package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function I'd suggest the following changes: -BuildRequires: rpmlint >= 0.85-2 -Requires: setup -Requires: rpm -Requires: rpmlint >= 0.85-2 +%dir %{_sysconfdir}/rpmlint %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/rpmlint/mingw-rpmlint.config -- 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