https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194798 --- Comment #14 from Philip Prindeville <philipp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Paul Howarth from comment #13) > (In reply to Philip Prindeville from comment #11) > > Issues: > > ======= > > - No %config files under /usr. > > Note: %config(noreplace) /usr/share/GeoIP/GeoIP.dat > > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Configuration_files > > This file is a symlink to GeoLiteCountry.dat, the default free database. > Upstream also provides commercial versions of the databases, which users may > wish to install to /usr/share/GeoIP/GeoIP.dat so that the library uses that > instead of the default free database. Marking this file as > %config(noreplace) means that rpm package updates won't blow away the user's > paid-for database file. This approach has been present in the existing GeoIP > package for a long time now, and is being carried forward to this package. I get all of that, I was just wondering if we could use %verify(...) instead of %config(noreplace) so that we have fewer rpmlint warnings. > > - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in > > the spec URL. > > Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/philipp/fedora/GeoIP- > > GeoLite-data/review-GeoIP-GeoLite-data/diff.txt > > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL > > Upstream releases new versions of the database files at least once a month. > They changed between when I prepared the packages for review and when the > review was done, hence the size/checksum differences. Yeah, sorry about taking too long. Hence my offer to rerun the review tool as soon as you update the .src.rpm. > > Why does the %files section treat GeoIP.dat differently from > > GeoLiteCountry.dat ? > > GeoLiteCountry.dat and the other database files from upstream are expected > to be rpm-maintained, or updated by the cron scripts. The GeoIP.dat symlink > is never touched after being installed in case the user wants to use a > different default database, as explained above. Right, right, I get that. It's just that it's not a config file, so I hate abusing that directive. And if tools like etckeeper pay attention to files marked %config, I don't want the file being checked into SCM, either. > > Also, the .spec files says that the license is CC-BY-SA but I can’t > > find explicit licensing on the databases anywhere. > > See the license statement at the upstream URL: > http://dev.maxmind.com/geoip/legacy/geolite/ > > "The GeoLite databases are distributed under the Creative Commons > Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" Can you wget that file and bundle it as a license file? > > I’d also wrap the comment lines at less than 80 characters. > > OK, done. Thanks. > > Why does the %install section need "rm -rf %{buildroot}”? > > The following spec elements are needed for EL-5 support: > * BuildRoot: and Group: tags > * Cleaning of %{buildroot} in %install and %clean Okay, right. Thought so. Can you add a comment to that effect? > Package updated: > > Spec URL: > http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/GeoIP-GeoLite-data/trunk/GeoIP- > GeoLite-data.spec > SRPM URL: > http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/GeoIP-GeoLite-data/GeoIP-GeoLite-data- > 2015.03-2.fc23.src.rpm -- 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