[Bug 225746] Merge Review: fedora-release

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: fedora-release


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225746


dev at nigelj.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From dev at nigelj.com  2007-06-28 18:59 EST -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> Package name:             OK (fedora-release)
> License:                  FAIL (GFDL vs. GPL)
OX
> Spec Legible:             OK (en_US) (see note)
> md5sum matches:           NA (fedora = upstream)
> rpmlint clean:            WARN
Acceptable
> Builds correctly:         OK (noarch)
> Spec has %clean:          OK
> Macro use consistant:     OK
> Contains code/content:    OK
> -doc subpackage:          NA
> -devel subpackage:        NA
> -static subpackage:       NA
> pkgconfig depend:         NA
> Contains %doc:            OK (GPL)
> Library suffix:           NA
> No .la files:             NA
> Use desktop-file-install: NA
> No duplicate ownerships:  OK
> rm -rf %{buildroot}:      OK
> RPM uses valid UTF-8:     OK
> %defattr is set:          OK (see note)
Acceptable
> No duplicate %files:      OK
> Not relocatable:          OK
> Calls ldconfig:           NA
> Supports Locales:         NA
> BR's are correct:         OK

> %files
> %defattr(-,root,root,-)
> %attr(0644,root,root) /etc/fedora-release
> /etc/redhat-release
> %dir /etc/yum.repos.d
> %config(noreplace) /etc/yum.repos.d/*
> %doc GPL
> %config(noreplace) %attr(0644,root,root) /etc/issue
> %config(noreplace) %attr(0644,root,root) /etc/issue.net
> %config(noreplace) %attr(0644,root,root) /etc/rpm/macros.dist
> %dir /etc/pki/rpm-gpg
> /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/*
This looks much better
> Makes me want to scream!
> 1. Please oh please don't put a %doc in the middle of a list of /etc files
> 2. %attr's seem redundant, 0644 can be implyed with install or even cp
> 3. I *think* %dir /etc/pki/rpm-gpg is redundant
> 4. I believe %{_sysconfdir} is perfered over /etc/file
All fixed or with reasoning, I will once again note that we pull up people for 
using /etc instead of %{_sysconfdir}

(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > rpmlint:
> > W: fedora-release non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY
> > W: fedora-release non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-beta
> > W: fedora-release non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-
test
> > W: fedora-release non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-
rawhide
> > W: fedora-release non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora
> That's correct, these aren't config files, they're data... that happens to 
live
> in a config directory.
> > W: fedora-release non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-rawhide
> See above about other gpg keys.

I wonder, would these be better in /usr/share/fedora or similar? 
(/usr/share/fedora/gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-whatever).

A symlink could be created to keep 3rd party repos happy.

Otherwise, all fine, go ahead and build like crazy :P

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.