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: fedora-release https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225746 dev@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From dev@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-06-28 18:59 EST ------- (In reply to comment #9) > Package name: OK (fedora-release) > License: FAIL (GFDL vs. GPL) OX > Spec Legible: OK (en_US) (see note) > md5sum matches: NA (fedora = upstream) > rpmlint clean: WARN Acceptable > Builds correctly: OK (noarch) > Spec has %clean: OK > Macro use consistant: OK > Contains code/content: OK > -doc subpackage: NA > -devel subpackage: NA > -static subpackage: NA > pkgconfig depend: NA > Contains %doc: OK (GPL) > Library suffix: NA > No .la files: NA > Use desktop-file-install: NA > No duplicate ownerships: OK > rm -rf %{buildroot}: OK > RPM uses valid UTF-8: OK > %defattr is set: OK (see note) Acceptable > No duplicate %files: OK > Not relocatable: OK > Calls ldconfig: NA > Supports Locales: NA > BR's are correct: OK > %files > %defattr(-,root,root,-) > %attr(0644,root,root) /etc/fedora-release > /etc/redhat-release > %dir /etc/yum.repos.d > %config(noreplace) /etc/yum.repos.d/* > %doc GPL > %config(noreplace) %attr(0644,root,root) /etc/issue > %config(noreplace) %attr(0644,root,root) /etc/issue.net > %config(noreplace) %attr(0644,root,root) /etc/rpm/macros.dist > %dir /etc/pki/rpm-gpg > /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/* This looks much better > Makes me want to scream! > 1. Please oh please don't put a %doc in the middle of a list of /etc files > 2. %attr's seem redundant, 0644 can be implyed with install or even cp > 3. I *think* %dir /etc/pki/rpm-gpg is redundant > 4. I believe %{_sysconfdir} is perfered over /etc/file All fixed or with reasoning, I will once again note that we pull up people for using /etc instead of %{_sysconfdir} (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #9) > > rpmlint: > > W: fedora-release non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY > > W: fedora-release non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-beta > > W: fedora-release non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora- test > > W: fedora-release non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora- rawhide > > W: fedora-release non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora > That's correct, these aren't config files, they're data... that happens to live > in a config directory. > > W: fedora-release non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-rawhide > See above about other gpg keys. I wonder, would these be better in /usr/share/fedora or similar? (/usr/share/fedora/gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-whatever). A symlink could be created to keep 3rd party repos happy. Otherwise, all fine, go ahead and build like crazy :P -- 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