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=487296 --- Comment #4 from Martin Nagy <mnagy@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-04 09:01:20 EDT --- rpmlint output: sssd.i386: W: no-documentation sssd.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/sssd/libsss_proxy.so sssd.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/sssd/libsss_ldap.so Can you please comment on these? %files section: %{_sharedstatedir}/sss/ expands to /usr/com/sss/ which doesn't exist. I think you meant %{_localstatedir}/%{_lib}/sss/ Additionally, I think the %{sssd_release} and %{sssd_version} macros aren't really useful. Please consider using standard macros. Please take a look at the following MUST and SHOULD items: MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. - according to the Licensing Guidelines, "In addition, the package must contain a comment explaining the multiple licensing breakdown.", please see section 1.2.9 MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. I have some problems with mock, so I will try building the package in mock later. -- 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