Bug 785919

Summary: The SPEC file is using the 'Vendor' tag
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Reporter: jcpunk
Component: qpid-cppAssignee: Ted Ross <tross>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Leonid Zhaldybin <lzhaldyb>
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 6.2CC: esammons, lzhaldyb, tross
Target Milestone: rc   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: qpid-cpp-0.14-16.el6 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-06-20 12:13:33 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Attachments:
Description Flags
Patch to remove the Vendor line none

Description jcpunk 2012-01-30 21:50:42 UTC 
Description of problem: The SPEC file has the Vendor tag explicitly set.  This is outside of the packaging standards I'm aware of for RHEL and Fedora.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags

"The Vendor tag should not be used. It is set automatically by the build system."


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):qpid-cpp-0.12-6.el6


How reproducible: 100%


Steps to Reproduce:
1. Open SPEC file
2. Search for Vendor:
3. Find something
  
Actual results:
Vendor is defined

Expected results:
Vendor not in use

Additional info: This may cause rebuilds to incorrectly label the RPMs as being provided by Redhat
Comment 2 jcpunk 2012-01-30 21:57:47 UTC 
Created attachment 558465 [details]
Patch to remove the Vendor line
Comment 5 Leonid Zhaldybin 2012-05-18 07:54:33 UTC 
This was fixed, there is no 'Vendor' tag in the spec file from qpid-cpp-0.14-16.el6.src.rpm.

-> VERIFIED
Comment 7 errata-xmlrpc 2012-06-20 12:13:33 UTC 
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2012-0764.html