https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228106 --- Comment #5 from Miroslav Suchý <msuchy@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Ihar Hrachyshka from comment #3) > /usr/share/neutron/server, /usr/share/neutron/l3_agent are owned by > openstack-neutron dependency that we have for the package. Indeed. This is false negative of fedora-review. So this is fine. > As discussed before, it's not realistic to expect that upstream will provide > manual pages for all tools, so I won't ship them either. Why? You are playing packager role here, and you follow distribution guidelines and best practices. It is very best practice to provide man page for every binary. So you should trying persuade upstream to provide such binary. Whether you just file bug report and leaving it as is, or you write that man page and you contribute it to upstream -- that is up to you and up to your standards. However you should *not* simply waive it out. Can you please *at least* report it to upstream? > For the scripts permissions, I will send a patch to upstream to fix it: > https://review.openstack.org/222655 In the mean time you should workaround it in spec. This review took 10 days and then some time to release new version probably. This can be sometime too long in distribution life (and you may wait to pass this review until you provide rebased package). So best practice is to put in spec: %install # reported to upstream: https://review.openstack.org/222655 chmod a+x %{python2_sitelib}/%{modulename}/tests/contrib/post_test_hook.sh > Updated the spec for %{buildroot} issue. Every time you change spec you should bump up release. This small amount of work will save you from a trouble in future. -- 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