https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263821
--- Comment #4 from Michael Kuhn <[email protected]> --- > - rpmlint checks return: > dput-ng.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag > /etc/dput.d/profiles/security-master.json > … > I'm fine with keeping this as is, adding the (noreplace), or moving the > files enitrely to /usr/share (if user modification is not expected / not > desirable). Your call. Good point, I simply used this layout because that is how the Debian package does it. I have now checked the documentation again and dput-ng first checks /usr/share, then /etc and then ~. I have now moved all files to /usr/share as they can be easily overridden using appropriate files in /etc or ~ (but this is usually not necessary). > - license text not marked as %license, the LICENSE file should be a seperate > line in %files starting with %license, rather then being part of %doc Done. By the way, I guess the Fedora wiki page (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package) is out-of-date then because it still contains the following sentence: “These prefixes are not valid in Fedora: %license and %readme.” Should I just update this? > If you can create a 2 srpm fixing these 2 issues (note as said for the first > issue, not taking any action is an acceptable solution), then we should be > good to go wrt this pkg. Spec: https://ikkoku.de/~suraia/dput-ng/dput-ng.spec SRPM: https://ikkoku.de/~suraia/dput-ng/dput-ng-1.10-2.fc23.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
