Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905255 --- Comment #34 from Simone Caronni <negativo17@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #29) > > I can test and I'm offering myself as co-mantainer for the package, but I would like to have epel 5 and 6 available. Is that ok for you? > > I will integrate your changes with a condition that we will be testing and > supporting only Fedora 19+ and RHEL 7+. All older releases will have to be > tested and verified by you or someone who is going to use the RPM on those > distros. To me is fine, you can add me as co-mantainer or make me directly the owner of the el5, el6, f17, f18 branches. (In reply to comment #30) > 1. Why do we need systemd-sysv for these releases? > > 47 %if 0%{?fedora} >= 18 || 0%{?rhel} >= 7 > 48 Requires(post): systemd-sysv Sorry, it was a leftover from another spec file from which I did copy the text. It will probably be needed at rhel 7 release time to make the upgrade from RHEL 6 (SysV) to the RHEL 7 (systemd) package. I will add it to the RHEL 6 branch when it will be time. > 2. I'm going to drop drivers.txt file (explanation in more previous comment). > Are you ok with that? Well, I would prefer that a text file goes along with the package, I think it would be better to leave that in. I'm pretty sure someone will open a bug saying that the required modules are missing or another discussion will rise. It's clear for you (and now all the people here in CC) but not for people looking for a way to install the tools in Fedora et al. Maybe you can expand it adding the explanation you did on comment #29. That would be good information, along the kernel drivers information. (In reply to comment #32) > The patch I have provided for init script is for following reason. > > I did not find the status check before starting the service, so I have also > modified the init script with status checks and missing exist $? at the end. > Now it is more like the template provided here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript#Initscript_template. Yes, please integrate, probably rpmdev-newspec is not on par with the Packaging Guidelines. (In reply to comment #33) > > - Doc. files are usually installed in %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}. You can probably use the --docdir=%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/ option in %configure, instead of installing API documentation « manually » through %doc. > > This is causing inclusion of help files in base package as well as in devel > package. I will have to revert this change to avoid the issue. Yes, but please add api docs only to the devel subpackage and not in a separate help subpackage. Thanks, --Simone -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1R66nYMHZZ&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review