https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287846
--- Comment #5 from mreynolds(a)redhat.com ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #4)
(In reply to mreynolds from comment #2)
> (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1)
> > >%{!?__python2: %global __python2 %__python}
> > >%{!?python2_sitelib: %global python2_sitelib %(%{__python2} -c "from
>distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}
> >
> > You don't need to define __python2, python2_sitelib macros unless you want
> > package in RHEL 6 and older.
>
> I was just following the rpmdevtool template, I will remove these lines.
>
> >
> > >%define name lib389
> > >%define version 1.0.1
> > >%define prerel 1
> >
> > These are redundant as well.
> >
> > Do you want build lib389 in RHEL 5?
>
> No, RHEL7 and up
Okay.
>%define prerel 1
Still redundant.
Why? Please explain. Since "release" gets %{?dist} I can not reuse
"release"
for the source code version/layout. Using "prerel", or some other variable,
would make future maintenance easier since there are several places that
reference it.
Anyway, I just removed prerel and manually added the "1" to the various places
in the spec file.
>BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
>Prefix: %{_prefix}
>Vendor: Red Hat Inc. <389-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
>rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
>Full %clean section
>%defattr(-,root,root,-)
Set automatically; please, remove them.
- Use %{__python2} macro in %build and %install
I thought you asked me to remove that?
- LICENSE must be tagged with %license
Sorry I missed this.
- Use %{python2_sitelib}/*, not %{python_sitelib}/*
Again I thought you wanted me to remove these.
Note - these docs say to follow(as closely as possible) the rpmdevtool
templates for spec files - these are obviously now outdated as you pointed out
various issues in my spec file which directly came from these templates.
Yes I've read these, but I was trying to respond to your suggestions. Clearly
I misunderstood your comments. I apologize.
I've uploaded the new spec file, and srpm. (same rpmlint results)
Thanks again for reviewing this!
--
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