https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878350 Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> --- > I have no idea what that means. I'm pretty sure the scriptlets section adheres to the guidelines. > Is it fedora-review bug? Unfortunately, I don't have much experience with packaging systemd service files, but you're right, the SPEC file adheres to the guidelines listed here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units Please, ignore the warning. > That would make the package depend on `systemd` or own systemd unit directories. > Both are wrong things to do for a simple package. I think an explicit dependency on systemd is not needed in this case. It's a part of the core system. > fedora-review seems to have trouble with any gitlab URLs :( That might be it. In the past I had issues with externally hosted packages as well and someone mentioned that it might be because fedora-review doesn't properly follow redirected routes. > Please, ignore this rpmlint error. > There's a GObject introspection import from python file which is not supported by rpm automatic dependency generators. Thus, explicit lib dependency. Makes sense then. The rest looks good. Package approved. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
