https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107441 --- Comment #15 from Björn "besser82" Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Mattias Ellert from comment #10) > (In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #7) > > Good work, Flo! There are just two small things I want to mention, > > additionally: > > > > [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in udt-devel > > > > ---> please fix up the requires of the -devel-subpkg. > > This is already there. I suspect you were confused by the requires as > reported by fedora-review. This tool fails to report versions in the > requires. It does the check for it properly, and complains if it is not > there (and there were no complaint in this case). But the list it displays > is a bit confusing because it does not contain the versions. Someone should > probably file a bug report to fedora-review about this. (%{name} = %{version}-%{release}) != (%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}) With the current non-arched requirement the i686-mainpkg will satisfy the dependency of the x86_64-develpkg, which will result in a dangling symlink and possibly other strange problems in chain of that. ;) There is a good reason about arched-requires like this to be part of the guidelines. > > [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. > > > > ---> `sed 's/\r//' -i doc/doc/udtdoc.css` doesn't preseve the timestamp > > of that particular file with will be packaged in -devel. ;) > > > > Using something like this would be better by the meaning of > > preserving > > the file's timestamp: > > > > _file="doc/doc/udtdoc.css" > > sed -e 's!\r$!!g' < ${_file} > ${_file}.new && \ > > touch -r ${_file} ${_file}.new && \ > > mv -f ${_file}.new ${_file} > > The file that is installed is not the original file since it is modified, so > giving the modified file the timestamp of the original seems a bit strange. > That would give the impression that it is the original file that is > installed. If I would do a similar fix using a %patch I would not be able to > do that anyway, and it seems strange to do different things with the > timestamps depending on how the file was modified. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Rpmlint_Errors > > says "Fix it in the %prep section with sed: sed -i 's/\r//' src/somefile" > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line- > encoding > > gives the same advise. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Remove_DOS_line_endings gives you the same example I used, which will preserve timestamps. In case of documentation and just fixing line-endings, I do not consider keeping the timestamp to be strange, since you do not modify the 'meaningful' content of the file; it's just about a platform-adjustment. When applying a patch, you can even preserve timestamps. There are multiple ways to accomplish that. ;) > (In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #8) > > btw. The branch used for building EPEL-pkg for rhel / CentOS 7 is called > > 'epel7'. ;) I just fixed your scm-request, Matthias. ^^ > > Thank you. > PS. You keep adding an h in my name) np ^^ You're welcome! Sry, about that additonal 'h'. ;( -- 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