https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1658199
--- Comment #18 from Andrew Bauer <[email protected]> --- Scott - Thank you very much to taking on this review. I was beginning to wonder what creative posts I might need to come up with on the devel list, funny jokes, recent declaration of independence, etc to persuade someone to review this for me. I owe you one, should you ever need me to review one of your requests. > %global _hardened_build 1 > This shouldn't be needed in Fedora anymore Agreed. I have this included because I plan to build for el7, and hardened builds default to off. > Source0: > http://download.sourceforge.net/netatalk/netatalk-%{version}.tar.bz2 > Use https. Will do. > BuildRequires: rpm > I don't think you need to BuildRequire rpm. Take a look at the pkgver and xslver macros. They call the rpm binary. While I'd call these macros unusual in the way they are created, these predate my involvement so I left them alone. If there is a prettier way to go about creating these macros, I'm certainly willing to look into it. > Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version} > I think you need to include the epoch here. You are absolutely right. I forgot the modify this line when I put epoch back in. I am out of town for my dayjob all week this week. I will add these action items to my to-do list when I return home. Thanks again for taking on this review. -- 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] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
