https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878350
Andy Mender <andymenderu...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Andy Mender <andymenderu...@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/#_user_units
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
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
