Bug 225911
Summary: | Merge Review: ipvsadm | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Parag AN(पराग) <panemade> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | kupcevic, matthias |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | panemade:
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: | 2008-01-18 14:29:24 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 19:07:04 UTC
Correct Buildroot. Use macros. check http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros Though dist tag is not mandatory but its good to have it in SPEC. update SPEC for further review. Update what? I won't add any dist tag, because the package pretty much never changes. Could you detail "Use macros.", please? (In reply to comment #2) > Update what? I won't add any dist tag, because the package pretty much never > changes. Could you detail "Use macros.", please? Fine. I think I have given link where to look for using macros in SPEC. Review Guidelines said - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. And I only asked you to change /etc/rc.d/init.d under %flies as given http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros on as /etc/rc.d/init.d => %{_initrddir} No, I won't use that macro. It's wrong, plain wrong. If it was called _initddir or even _initdir, why not. Then should we ask Fedora Packaging Committee to remove that usage if its wrong way to use that macro? otherwise else spec looks fine. APPROVED. |