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=464781 --- Comment #25 from D Haley <mycae@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-20 09:08:07 EDT --- Hopefully this package is near completion. I must be close to winning a most revised package award. SPEC URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/flexdock-8.spec SRPM URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/flexdock-0.5.1-8.fc10.src.rpm Now that deps are satisified, I have provided a scratch build. Koji scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1068723flexdock-0.5.1-8.fc10.src.rpm I swear that the rpmlint is emty. really! [makerpm@box SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/flexdock-0.5.1-8.fc10.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [makerpm@box SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/i386/flexdock-0.5.1-8.fc10.i386.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [makerpm@box SPECS]$ rpmlint flexdock.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. >$ rpmbuild -bb flexdock.spec >error: No compatible architectures found for build Now I'm not sure why I have not left this out. I see no reason that PPC64 is special, at least not considering the changes to the sdk.home. >You seem to have forgotten to add these as BuildRequires as well. Added >$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock//fedora-rawhide-i386/result >flexdock-debuginfo.i386: E: empty-debuginfo-package >flexdock.src:157: E: files-attr-not-set[makerpm@spiderbox SPECS]$ rpmlint -i ../RPMS/i386/flexdock-0.5.1-8.fc10.i386.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [makerpm@spiderbox SPECS]$ rpmlint -i ../SRPMS/flexdock-0.5.1-8.fc10.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [makerpm@spiderbox SPECS]$ rpmlint -i flexdock.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. >flexdock.src:158: E: files-attr-not-set >flexdock.src:159: E: files-attr-not-set >3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings. Defattr set, strip command modified to only unneeded, rather than all. >According to Java Packaging Guidelines, you're installing the files in the >wrong location. Please fix that. Re-Reading: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#Packaging_JAR_files_that_use_JNI I have moved them into their own subfolder /%{_libdir}/%{name}/. The origin of this particular rationale is somewhat unclear to me. Having examined a long thread from March 2007 (http://osdir.com/ml/linux.redhat.fedora.java/2007-03/msg00044.html), consensus was at best unclear. Nevertheless, they are moved. >Also, the specfile has lots of trailing whitespace and inconsistent usage of >spaces and tabs for indentation. Please fix that, too. Trailing whitespace is now gone -- I dont see any indentation issues (grep), as such this has not been fixed. Also rpmlint warns mixed tab/space indenting -- am I not understanding something? $ grep -E '^\ ' flexdock.spec $ There was a trailing endline, and I got rid of it. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review