Jason Tibbits response to my post pointed me in the right
direction. Here's my reply to him, which I neglected to copy to the
list. The problem was not in the coding of spec file but rather in
how fedora-review determines which spec file to use.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Thanks for the swift reply. Your request for the a link to the SRPM
pointed me in the right direction. Even though the -n option to
fedora-review specifies the name of the spec file in the current
directory, fedora-review was using a slate spec file in the input
srpm. So it seems to be a workflow issue, not a spec file syntax issue.
On 07/12/2017 01:58 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>> "SR" == Sanford Rockowitz <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> SR> I hope this list is appropriate for asking a question regarding rpm
> SR> file ownership. As a relative rpm newbie, I suspect I'm missing some
> SR> piece of "secret sauce" that's just obvious to anyone with rpm
> SR> experience. If there's a more appropriate place to post the
> SR> question, I'd appreciate a pointer. Thanks in advance.
> It's always a good idea to provide a link to your SRPM. Without it, all
> I can say is that what you're doing _should_ work but that I'd have to
> see the whole thing and build it myself to see exactly what's happening.
> - J<