[Bug 226666] Merge Review: yum

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Jul 11 01:56:50 UTC 2007


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: yum


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226666


bugzilla at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |medium
           Priority|normal                      |medium
            Product|Fedora Extras               |Fedora




------- Additional Comments From jbowes at redhat.com  2007-07-10 21:56 EST -------
(In reply to comment #10)
> Issues:
> 
> * Why is it a BuildRequires: python and not Buildrequires: python-devel?
> 
> * it seems to me that the python-devel BuildRequires should be versionned
> then Requires: python >= 2.4 would be autodetected

Yum uses a Makefile + python to byte compile the code rather than setup.py, so
it wouldn't actually BR: python-devel

> * Prereq should be replaced with Requires(preun) and so on...

These are fixed up already.

> * Is the conflict really needed? pirut >= 1.1.4 should requires a
> recent enough yum version.
 
pirut < 1.1.4 would blow up with new yum, so the conflict is needed. Now,
whether or not yum in F7 and rawhide should care about older pirut is a
different issue...


> suggestions:
> 
> * use %defattr(-, root, root, -) instead of %defattr(-, root, root)
> 
> * prefix plugin.conf source file by a disambiguating prefix like
> yum-plugin.conf
> 
> * remove the -f to be notified when the file doesn't exist/change name...
> rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_sysconfdir}/yum/yum.conf
> 
> * there is an occurence of /etc hardcoded in the specfile, it could be
>   %_sysconfdir. However the upstream Makefiles and programs have many
>   paths hardcoded so this is not really an issue. (There is also a /var
>   and some /usr, but I guess they are also hardcoded in the package).
> 
> * It seems to me that BuildArch is more used that BuildArchitectures
> 
> * There is no need of / after $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

defattr, buildarch, and macro suggestions incorporated in devel.

Everyone ok with closing this one?

-- 
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.




More information about the package-review mailing list