[PATCH] [bugfix] Updated RPM spec file
shawn at redhat.com
Wed Oct 2 18:42:11 UTC 2013
On 10/2/13 12:57 PM, Jan Lieskovsky wrote:
> Hello Shawn,
> as promised, attached is slightly enhanced patch
> for RHEL6's spec file it to quieten more rpmlint
> * spaces 've been replaced with tabs globally,
> * removed dot from Summary,
> * updated license && group,
> * replaced hard-coded paths with rpm macros,
> * adjusted defattr rpmlint not to complain about
> invalid shebangs. For now kept defattr there
> (since other RHEL6 specs do too), but according
> to Fedora PackagingGuidelines (section File Permissions):
> it was necessary only in versions of rpm package
> prior to 4.4. Since in RHEL6 there's rpm-4.8.0 currently,
> that macro might not be even needed already.
> * adjusted scap-security-guide manual page definition rpmlint
> not to complain about missing %lang.
> The rpmlint output has been reduced to two warnings / errors:
> - one about the invalid source - as previously mentioned,
> this is not something i can fix. Someone with proper privileges
> needs to upload the tarball to pre-agreed https:// location first,
> then that location needs to be listed after Source0: section of
> the spec file to calm down this warning,
We should be able to take care of this today. Something like
A few of us are using the gov shutdown as an opportunity to knock out
much needed to-do's. Watch for patches/EMails on this later today!
> - the other one about the 'too much recursion / deep loop'
> could be quieten by moving the Version and Release information
> from the main Makefile into the RHEL6's scap-security-guide.spec
> file (and for purpose of their use in the main Makefile
> being extracted back from the spec file like Fedora case is doing).
> But since this impacts main Makefile and the way how RHEL6
> versioning would behave, i am gonna to wait with the change
> till someone else approves / confirms, fixing this particular
> rpmlint warning has higher priority than Version / Release being
> in the main Makefile.
The RHEL RPM versioning should be updated to align with your (very well
thought out) scheme for Fedora. Please feel free to update this!
> * didn't update the changelog entry yet (for case this wouldn't be
> the final version).
> Please review.
Thank you for all your help on this!
More information about the scap-security-guide