Spec URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/generic-release.spec SRPM URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/generic-release-9.91-1.src.rpm Description: Generic release files such as yum configs and various /etc/ files that define the release. This package explicitly is a replacement for the fedora-release package, if you are unable for any reason to abide by the trademark restrictions on the fedora-release package. It also generates a generic-release-notes subpackage.
Several warnings but nothing different from fedora-release (which I suppose we can consider upstream from this package). I do suggest using an URL though (which is the only extra warning), and maybe using https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/TrademarkGuidelines is appropriate? However, since this is basically a clone of the fedora-release package, and 9/10 warnings are for good reason, and the 10th warning is understandable, I approve this package
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: generic-release Short Description: Generic release files Owners: spot Branches: devel InitialCC: ... and it's done.
This package conflicts with fedora-release, so I think it should explicitly do so, with a comment. Also I think that it would be better if there was no references to fedora-release in the %description, but that instead it referred to something like 'the trademarked release package', for reuse in other contexts. The %description would become along: Generic release files such as yum configs and various /etc/ files that define the release. This package explicitly is a replacement for the trademarked release package, if you are unable for any reason to abide by the trademark restrictions on the trademarked release package.
It is "fair use" to refer to the fedora-release package in the description, but I see what you're saying. The conflicts is a valid point, I will go add that.
Built in rawhide.