|
Jason Tibbits response to my post pointed me in the right
direction. Here's my reply to him, which I neglected to copy to the
list. The problem was not in the coding of spec file but rather in
how fedora-review determines which spec file to use. Sanford -------- Forwarded Message --------
Jason, Thanks for the swift reply. Your request for the a link to the SRPM pointed me in the right direction. Even though the -n option to fedora-review specifies the name of the spec file in the current directory, fedora-review was using a slate spec file in the input srpm. So it seems to be a workflow issue, not a spec file syntax issue. Sanford On 07/12/2017 01:58 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >>>>>> "SR" == Sanford Rockowitz <rockowitz@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > SR> I hope this list is appropriate for asking a question regarding rpm > SR> file ownership. As a relative rpm newbie, I suspect I'm missing some > SR> piece of "secret sauce" that's just obvious to anyone with rpm > SR> experience. If there's a more appropriate place to post the > SR> question, I'd appreciate a pointer. Thanks in advance. > > It's always a good idea to provide a link to your SRPM. Without it, all > I can say is that what you're doing _should_ work but that I'd have to > see the whole thing and build it myself to see exactly what's happening. > > - J< > |
_______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
