https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878350
Andy Mender <andymenderunix(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix(a)gmail.com> ---
I have no idea what that means. I'm pretty sure the scriptlets
section adheres to the guidelines.
Is it fedora-review bug?
Unfortunately, I don't have much experience with packaging systemd service
files, but you're right, the SPEC file adheres to the guidelines listed here:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_us...
Please, ignore the warning.
That would make the package depend on `systemd` or own systemd unit
directories.
Both are wrong things to do for a simple package.
I think an explicit dependency on systemd is not needed in this case. It's a
part of the core system.
fedora-review seems to have trouble with any gitlab URLs :(
That might be it. In the past I had issues with externally hosted packages as
well and someone mentioned that it might be because fedora-review doesn't
properly follow redirected routes.
Please, ignore this rpmlint error.
There's a GObject introspection import from python file which is not supported by rpm
automatic dependency generators. Thus, explicit lib dependency.
Makes sense then.
The rest looks good. Package approved.
--
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