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=737286 --- Comment #16 from Clint Savage <herlo1@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-01-08 22:26:43 EST --- I believe I've cleaned up all of the rpmlint. I really should have run that last time and just missed it :( $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/salt.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [clints@x201 (master) rpm]$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/salt-0.9.4-6.fc16.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. If you check all of the binary rpms, they should be just as clean. I won't put their output here for brevity. As for the rest: - %if ! (0%{?rhel} < 7 || 0%{?fedora} < 15) doesn't "work" on f16 as rhel is undefined and 0 is < 7 --> sysV is installed. e.g. this should work: "%if (0%{?rhel} > 7 || 0%{?fedora} > 15)" and below where is "%if (0%{?rhel} < 7 || 0%{?fedora} < 15)" it should be: "%if ! (0%{?rhel} > 7 || 0%{?fedora} > 15)" Yep, missed that. In fact, I missed it in quite a few places and that is what cleaned up a bunch of the rpmlint problems. - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript#Initscripts_in_spec_file_scriptlets : %preun -n salt-master/minion is missing Fixed this too. > It seems you have a half copy of a debian initscript or something... > You could compare it to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript#Initscript_template and try to clean up rpmlint till it's error/warning free and then correct the macros above to include the systemd scripts. (I didn't need to write one yet, so I won't be of great help here...) It really looks like the main problem I had wasn't with the scripts, but with my login in the spec file. Once I adjusted it, things are good. I did make minor adjustments to the lsb headers in the init scripts, however. > Ok, having those deps in "%if (0%{?rhel} > 7 || 0%{?fedora} > 15)" would be best, I think. Then it doesn't clutter in the python26 package, but might lead to a crash (but Thatch will probably fix that ;)) Actually, I don't know if that would be the best approach. It seems that there might be no real reason to not have them in both. For the time being, I'm going to leave them. When I am able to chat with Thatch, I may change them at that point. SPEC: http://herlo.fedorapeople.org/rpms/salt.spec SRPM: http://herlo.fedorapeople.org/rpms/salt-0.9.4-6.fc16.src.rpm Thanks, Clint -- 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