https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051665 --- Comment #5 from MartinKG <mgansser@xxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Rahul Sundaram from comment #4) > Cursory first look: > > * Is there any particular reason the conf file is not part of upstream? > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/ > Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment Configuration files for plugin parameters. These are Fedora specific and not in upstream. In all other vdr plugins the conf-file is also not in the upstream, and it's not a blocker. > * I would use %make_install instead of make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT agreed, done. > * Might consider using %{buildroot} for consistency agreed, done. > Why is this noreplace? if it is not supposed to be edited by users, should > it be in /etc? no, it must be in /etc/sysconfig/vdr-plugins.d/ which is required by vdr and it must not be overwritten. > > %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/sysconfig/vdr-plugins.d/skinnopacity.conf Spec URL: http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/vdr-skinnopacity.spec SRPM URL: http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/vdr-skinnopacity-1.0.3-4.0b29805.fc20.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Jan 14 2014 Martin Gansser <martinkg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.0.3-4.0b29805 - used %%make_install instead of make install DESTDIR... - using %{buildroot} for consistency -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review