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=807017 --- Comment #14 from Juan Hernández <juan.hernandez@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-04-12 09:28:22 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) > Out of the rpmlint warnings, these looks suspicious: I can explain the reasons for those errors: > ovirt-engine.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/share/ovirt-engine/scripts/vds_installer.py 0644L /usr/bin/python This is script is not designed to run in the Fedora machine where it is installed: it is to be downloaded (via web) by other machines that will then execute it. So I think that it is better to have it without execution permissions. > ovirt-engine-log-collector.noarch: E: script-without-shebang > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sos/plugins/postgresql.py > ovirt-engine-log-collector.noarch: E: script-without-shebang > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sos/plugins/jboss.py These are SOS plugins and they have execution permission and no shebang, as all the other SOS plugins. > There are a lot of other warnings, but I can't see any of them > being problems. eg. lots of complaints about "dangling symlinks" > but they all appear to be satisfied by Required packages, so they > wouldn't be a real problem (unless the dependent packages change ...) This is a general issue with rpmlint, I thoroughly checked that the symlinks are correct. > We had a discussion on IRC about the version and release fields. > Currently they are: > > Version: %{upstream_version} > Release: 10.%{upstream_release}%{?dist} > > The usual rule is that "version belongs to upstream and release > belongs to Fedora", which would imply: > > Version: %{upstream_version}.%{upstream_release} > Release: 10.%{?dist} I also had this discussion (with myself). At the end I came to the conclusion that the "_0001" part of the upstream version number matches what in Fedora we call a post-release (see [1]). If the upstream project increases this correctly when they do new post-releases then it can go safely in the "Version" tag, as you suggest. However there is no history of upstream releases (this is the first one) so I can't be sure upstream is going to increase it correctly, so I decided to put it in the "Release" tag to be on the safe side. That said, I am pretty sure next upstream release will be 3.1.x, so this won't be a problem. I don't have anything against doing this change. Just let me know what you prefer. > I don't think this is a blocker, but it would be interesting > to see what you think about making this change. Thanks again! [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages -- 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