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=485496 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-14 12:33:40 EDT --- (In reply to comment #0) > It's spitting an only-non-binary-in-usr-lib error, and I think it's because of > the things that are being install in %{_libdir}, like the m4 files, the > pkgconfig files and the configuration header files. + rpmlint won't complain for pkgconfig file as only-non-binary-in-usr-lib, however for m4 files and header file rpmlint currently complains. For this package this rpmlint can be ignored. Then: Some random notes: - Please consider to use %{?dist} macro: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag - Source0 must be given with full URL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL - gegl-devel Requires babl-devel, so "BuildRequires: babl-devel" is redundant. - Usually the dependencies between binary rpms rebuilt from a srpm must be EVR (not just version) specific. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package - This srpm won't build on dist-f11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1126647 - We recommend %defattr(-,root,root,-) - Please consider to add the following files ------------------------------------------------------------ AUTHORS COPYING COPYING.LESSER ------------------------------------------------------------ to main package and ------------------------------------------------------------ ChangeLog ------------------------------------------------------------ to -devel package. -- 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