Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: dhcdbd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225690 dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(dcantrell@xxxxxxxx| |om) | ------- Additional Comments From dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-06-11 13:08 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > rpmlint output: > W: dhcdbd macro-in-%changelog post > W: dhcdbd macro-in-%changelog doc > E: dhcdbd no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install Fixed. > macro usage: > Should Patch0 be specified with %{name}-%{version}-initscript.patch, and the > same for Patch1? I would think so, but someone said %{name}-VERSION is preferred because you want the patch to indicate the version of the software is was made against. So while you may upgrade to version 3.0 of software foo, the patches against 2.5 may still apply. > Requires: > Remember that we don't like file requires, so you could just Requires(...) > chkconfig and initscripts. The guidelines say it's allowed as long as the files > are in /sbin, though. Your call. Yeah, I picked those up from the packaging guidelines. I'll require the packages though. Fixed. > Scriptlets: > Be consistent about checking conditions before running the preun and postun > scriptlets. Right now, they use different forms of the same test. Fixed. Changes made to devel branch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review