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=225854 --- Comment #2 from Roman Rakus <rrakus@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-19 07:32:27 EDT --- >[FAILED] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the > license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of > the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc > -> Add COPYING to %doc Fixed. >- Change BuildRoot e.g. to: > BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Fixed. >- Use _smpflags for make or explain, why/that it can't used, e.g. > make %{?_smp_mflags} Fixed. >- Kill "Prereq: /sbin/install-info" line, replace by > Requires(post): /sbin/install-info > Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info Fixed. >- Shouldn't it be the following rather the current (add || :)? > %preun > if [ $1 = 0 ]; then > /sbin/install-info --delete %{_infodir}/gperf.info.gz %{_infodir}/dir || : > fi > exit 0 Is it necessary? Fixed. >- Please let us talk about why nearly nothing of gperf/doc/* currently ends up > in the package, there's *.pdf, *.ps, *.html documentation. Reasons? Added *.{html,ps,pdf} fixed in gperf-3.0.3-5.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review