https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971103
--- Comment #20 from Peter Schiffer pschiffe@redhat.com --- Hi Eduardo.
(In reply to Eduardo Echeverria from comment #19)
Hi @Peter
I haven't reviewed the package thoroughly, but I have a comments for you
- The package has buildroot, for el6 it is not necessary, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
Fixed.
- Every time that you make changes to the spec, you should bump the release
number
OK.
- There are a weird requires in the retrieved requires from rpmbuild
Requires (from fedora-review)
bsd-mailx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/sbin/alternatives
config(bsd-mailx) Please see:http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering
This is there because of the %config macro in the %files section, and it's in both, requires and provides. With this rpm feature it's possible to separate config files to the stand-alone rpm packages (or something like that). IMHO there's no need to filter this..
- A question, is bsd-mailx a fork of mailx.?
Other way around. mailx (specifically heirloom-mailx is fork of bsd-mailx). We need bsd-mailx in EPEL-6 for compatibility reasons.
I quote As a general rule, Fedora packages must NOT contain any usage of the Conflicts: field https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts
This is necessary because of the alternatives. I've added alternatives support to the mailx-12.4-7 in RHEL-6, so both, mailx and bsd-mailx can be installed. Older mailx and bsd-mailx won't play nice.
Also, your quote is missing second part: As a general rule, Fedora packages must NOT contain any usage of the Conflicts: field. ... However, there are some cases in which using the Conflicts: field is appropriate and acceptable.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15321270/bsd-mailx.spec https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15321270/bsd-mailx-8.1.2-2.el6.src.rpm
Thank you for your comments!
peter