https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1148224 --- Comment #6 from Tim Fenn <tim.fenn@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #5) > One "major" item I do not understand is this - > > mmdb2.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided mmdb > > > But, this is fine. I see obsoletes in the spec file. > > From the spec file, > > %if 0%{?fedora} >= 21 > Obsoletes: mmdb < %{version}-%{release} > %endif > > Strange? > Well, I'm wondering how to handle the case where packages that depend on the original mmdb don't break when this update comes out? Since mmdb2 and mmdb can coexist, but mmdb is being deprecated (and the two aren't compatible). Whats the proper way to handle that? (I do plan on updating the packages that depend on this pacakge, BTW, but thats the next step) > Other than that, some minor items. Detailed review below. > > > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > - Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros > > > ---> Spec clean up? > I did a spec file clean up based on this and the other recommendations. Once I sort out how to best handle the provides/obsoletes issue, I'll post the latest spec file. -- 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