Bug 226297
Summary: | Merge Review: pinfo | ||
---|---|---|---|
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: | mlichvar |
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: | 2008-01-15 09:31:27 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 20:40:27 UTC
1)rpmlint on binary RPM gave me pinfo.i386: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/pinforc ==>from SPEC its clear that its purposefully done. SHOULD: Can you follow scriptlet guidelines for install-info as per given at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#head-47896da5fb2662d75deefeb9ba75145a398515db Do you want to build new version for this or you want to fix scriptlet next time you release? What's wrong with the scriptlet? It seems to follow the guideline. If you think its ok then I don't mind. I just want to make sure it follows exactly whats written on packaging guidelines page. In SPEC its, %post /sbin/install-info %{_infodir}/pinfo.info.gz %{_infodir}/dir : %preun if [ $1 = 0 ]; then /sbin/install-info --delete %{_infodir}/pinfo.info.gz %{_infodir}/dir fi : suggested one is %post /sbin/install-info %{_infodir}/%{name}.info %{_infodir}/dir || : %preun if [ $1 = 0 ]; then /sbin/install-info --delete %{_infodir}/%{name}.info %{_infodir}/dir || : fi I think rest packaging looks Ok. I usually prefer ":" as separate command. It's mentioned in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#head-ac070867bcfda441b0ae7690be90ac16b43894e8 Thanks for the review. (In reply to comment #4) > I usually prefer ":" as separate command. It's mentioned in > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#head-ac070867bcfda441b0ae7690be90ac16b43894e8 > No issues. I just tried to make sure following "The "|| :" in this case prevents failures that would typically affect systems that have been configured not to install any %doc files, or have read-only mounted, %_netsharedpath /usr/share." > Thanks for the review. Welcome :) |