Bug 225690
| Summary: | Merge Review: dhcdbd | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Chris Lumens <clumens> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | dcantrell |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | clumens:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2007-06-11 17:21:17 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
2007-01-31 18:26:28 UTC
rpmlint output:
W: dhcdbd macro-in-%changelog post
W: dhcdbd macro-in-%changelog doc
E: dhcdbd no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
macro usage:
Should Patch0 be specified with %{name}-%{version}-initscript.patch, and the
same for Patch1?
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.
Scriptlets:
Be consistent about checking conditions before running the preun and postun
scriptlets. Right now, they use different forms of the same test.
(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. Looks good to me. |