Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538057
Ruediger Landmann <r.landmann(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag| |needinfo?(msuchy(a)redhat.com
| |)
--- Comment #6 from Ruediger Landmann <r.landmann(a)redhat.com> 2011-03-10 01:46:18
EST ---
Thanks: looks good except for:
rhnmd.spec:19: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes rhnmd.i386
rhnmd.spec:20: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes rhnmd.x86_64
rhnmd.spec:19: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 7, tab: line 19)
rhnmd.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided rhnmd.i386
rhnmd.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided rhnmd.x86_64
If you're going to obsolete the arch-specific versions of the packages, you
should also
1. specify the last version of the arch-specific packages
2. add corresponding "Provides:" for the arch-specific packages
On the other hand, because this package is new to Fedora, I question whether
you need to obsolete these at all -- how many Fedora machines are likely to
have the arch-specific versions of the packages installed on them?
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.