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.landm...@redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(msu...@redhat.com | |) --- Comment #6 from Ruediger Landmann <r.landm...@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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
