https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865535 --- Comment #4 from Ralph Bean <rbean@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #3) > Still two objections: > > The CFLAGS definition is useless here, we don't have any C code. > > This package is a split-out from datanommer. It's only defined that it > conflicts with that. This would mean that somebody can install datanommer > *or* python-datanommer-models. But isn't it the successor of datanommer? To > have a clean upgrade path, I would use the following instead: > > Obsoletes: datanommer < 0.2.0 > Provides: datanommer > > The latter is for making rpmlint happy, but not really necessary in my mind, > because we get more than one package which will obsolete it. > The same you could do for the other (upcoming) splitouts of datanommer. Here's a new release that has the CFLAGS definition removed. Regarding the Conflicts/Obsoletes/Provides, I'd like to still maintain the datanommer package itself as a kind of meta-package that installs the splitoffs but also includes "fedmsg-hub" which will turn on a new service. Once these packages are approved, I would bump the datanommer meta package from 0.1.8 to 0.2.0 to match them. Do you think that would be okay? Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-datanommer-models.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/python-datanommer-models-0.2.0-3.fc18.src.rpm -- 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