[Bug 226365] Merge Review: redhat-rpm-config

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Nov 27 00:15:08 UTC 2007


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: redhat-rpm-config


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226365


bugzilla at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |medium
           Priority|normal                      |medium
            Product|Fedora Extras               |Fedora

pertusus at free.fr changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pertusus at free.fr




------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr  2007-11-26 19:15 EST -------
Is the archive only present in the srpm? Couldn't there be a
better place for it, to allow for easier modifications?

Shouldn't the references to Red Hat be removed? The reference
to Red Hat are in config.guess, though it seems a bit buggy
since the mere presence of the file isn't a necessary condition
for redhat to be vendor. I don't know what is the exact status 
of that file regarding trademark, though:
config.guess:## for Red Hat Linux
config.guess:if test -f /etc/redhat-release ; then
config.guess:    VENDOR=redhat ;

in dist.sh, I think that  /etc/system-release should be used instead.

In macros there is
%_vendor         redhat

and
# Use these macros to differentiate between RH and other KMP implementation(s).
redhat_kernel_module_package     1
I believe this one is right, but redhat is not really redhat here,
it could be anything else.

In the spec file there are also references to Red Hat, it seems
to me that they should be changed to something more neutral, like
Distribution.

Now the %_vendor definition is right, and this itself seems a good
reason to me to keep the package name and the directory name. What
do you think about it? In any case if there are trademark issues,
it would be nice to be easily able to change redhat to something
else at a specific place only, such that this package can easily
be reused.


Buildroot is not in the accepted ones.

Summary should not end with a dot.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list