https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036320 --- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> --- > Dependency has been renamed! Haha! It would have been better to not review that one so quickly. Just kidding. Temporarily adding Provides to libnftables for virtual package names may suffice as a quick work-around, Provides: libnftnl%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} %{?_isa:Provides: libnftnl = %{version}-%{release} and a corresponding thing in the -devel pkg. Hopefully upstream will not rename again, and then a single Rename Request could be opened. [...] > If I make them non executable, find-debuginfo breaks. That would be very unusual. They are only scripts. > I think this development is too early to decide that True. Being aware of the dangers is what's important, and rpmlint output must be mentioned in the review to meet the guidelines. If a future update wants to modify the scripts, but the user has modified them before, RPM treating them like config files may lead to problems depending on how/when the files get executed. That's less of a problem, if only the user runs them manually. More of a problem, if they get integrated somehow (even if only the user does that after modifying them) and if they would not run anymore without errors. That could be worse than incompatible changes to a config file, but of course, in upgrades one can break ordinary config files, too (with the important changes only entering the .rpmnew file). Currently, the scripts look more like examples for "nft -f …", IMO. -- 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