https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146181 --- Comment #4 from Damian Wrobel <dwrobel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Jan, many thanks for taking this review. (In reply to Jan Holcapek from comment #3) > No blockers, just a few questions/suggestions. > > - rpmlint on both source and binary rpms looks good. > - Great idea of providing a sample config odbc.ini.sample! > > - Any special reason to require files (%{_bindir}/iconv, > %{_bindir}/odbcinst}) rather than packages (glibc-common, unixODBC, > respectively)? This way I don't need to care which particular package contain this file. > - Ad "correct EOL" in %prep: wouldn't dos2unix do the work more easily? It's based on the [1], which states that "...using dos2unix is not necessary". > - Ad checking executable odbcinst in %post and %preun is not required, since > there is a dependency to %{_bindir}/odbcinst, right? (And thus "true" at the > end of %post and %preun is not necessary, too.) Dependency in the spec don't protect us from situation where the 'odbcinst' got removed (intentionally or accidentaly) from the filesystem. As a result it might cause problems when you would like to reinstall this package. > - The upstream src rpm comes with quite old libtool; shouldn't we consider > using the one from the distribution? That would require setting a new > build-time dependency and patching Makefile. We might consider to report it upstream. I would prefer not to patch it until it would be really necessary. > > Anyway, good job! [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding -- 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