Spec Name or Url: http://people.atrpms.net/~athimm/fedorasubmit/fedora-package-config-smart.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://people.atrpms.net/~athimm/fedorasubmit/smart-0.40-23.src.rpm Description: Configuration files for smart. These are split off the main package for the same reasons yum's and up2date's config files are split off into fedora-release. These config files (channel) are the *.repo config files from fedora-release transcribed for smart.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 175473 ***
Good: + rpmlint to srpm ok. + Local build worked fine. Bad: - rpmlint for rpms complaints: rpmlint smart-0.40-23.i686.rpm W: smart conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/pam.d/smart-root W: smart conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/security/console.apps/smart-root rpmlint smart-gui-0.40-23.i686.rpm W: smart-gui no-documentation rpmlint smart-update-0.40-23.i686.rpm W: smart-update no-documentation - BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) ? Encoding should be UTF-8 - New upstream release is available. I have reopen this bug, becouse its was accidently closed.
It was not accidentally closed, this *is* a duplicate of bug 175473. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 175473 ***
Reopening due to bug 175438 comment 77 and bug 185239
Updated packages for FC5 are available at: http://people.atrpms.net/~athimm/fedorasubmit/fedora-package-config-smart-5-4.src.rpm * Sat Apr 1 2006 Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm> - 5-4 - Update to Fedora Core 5. * Tue Dec 13 2005 Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm> - 4-3 - changed name to fedora-package-config-smart - Modify to only include what fedora-release includes for yum.
Review: - rpmlint checks return: E: fedora-package-config-smart no-binary W: fedora-package-config-smart no-documentation Both are safe to ignore. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPL) OK - spec file legible, in am. english - no real way to check config files against "upstream" - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - content ok - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc - no need for .desktop file APPROVED. One down, one to go.
Nitpick: including the source files separately in the SRPM instead of rolling them in a tarball would be more developer friendly (think CVS checkouts, diffs, commit mails).
Having seen the cvs system in action I agree with Ville in the previous comment. I tried to make the "upstream" sources look more like what is in the fedora-release package.
*** Bug 175473 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***