https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=980851 Christopher Meng <cickumqt@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo? | --- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng <cickumqt@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Dario Faggioli from comment #3) > Mmm... sorry but I'm not sure I got everything you said. I put/kept those > lines in the spec file because I found similar ones in most of the spec > files I looked at while seeking "inspiration" for writing mine. :-) I'm not good at teaching history, simple fact is, when RPM in some elder version, it has some rules which made people works harder, people in general should not care about where is the buildroot path, why should RPM clean after install(why it cannot clean automatically?) and so on. > Also, I'm not sure I want to package this for EPEL yet. Anyway, if you're > saying that I do not need those lines for now, and I should only re-consider > adding them later, if/when I decide to package this for EPEL, then I'm fine > with that and will remove them. I think you _can_ package it.( CentOS just launched a project can run xen4 on EL6 machines) But RHEL use KVM as default toy and no Xen in EPEL, so I'm not sure. In another hand, from the spec I don't see any Requires has xen-related stuffs. So you can create one for EPEL. If you create a spec for EPEL, please modify again.(questions welcome) > Yes, I have a couple of (noreplace), for things in /etc that I want > preserved across updates. Those ones it complains about are either sample, > template or explanatory files that I actually _do_ want to be updated, so I > feel like I should not (noreplace) them. Should I suppress the warning > somehow else? If you consider that those files don't have needs for user to edit, treat rpmlint issues as false positives. > > 7. Consider the glob, I think you can shrink the size of spec. And use > > %{name} to replace xen-tools in %files if you like. > > > What do you mean by "Consider the glob, I think you can shrink the size of > spec"? About using %{name}, good point, I will do that. Hmm... My initial thought is that you can use one line: %{_mandir}/man8/*.8* or two lines: %{_mandir}/man8/xen*.8* %{_mandir}/man8/xt*.8* to replace such a tons of lines: %{_mandir}/man8/xen-create-image.8* %{_mandir}/man8/xen-delete-image.8* %{_mandir}/man8/xen-resize-guest.8* %{_mandir}/man8/xt-create-xen-config.8* %{_mandir}/man8/xt-guess-suite-and-mirror.8* %{_mandir}/man8/xen-create-nfs.8* %{_mandir}/man8/xt-install-image.8* %{_mandir}/man8/xt-customize-image.8* %{_mandir}/man8/xen-update-image.8* %{_mandir}/man8/xen-list-images.8* But this is up to you, there are advantages and disadvantages. -- 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=NomyEhCVmw&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review