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=490462 --- Comment #11 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-25 07:54:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) > Does the Makefile need to be included as a doc? No, that's a mistake that I copied from the upstream spec file. Fix below. > and the files section is truncated. Not sure what you mean by this, but I tend to want to list files explicitly, so that I will get feedback from RPM if the list changes in the future (ie. if upstream adds more binaries, or if for some reason the build fails partially and some binaries are omitted). We learned this lesson hard with mingw32 packages and wrote it into the guidelines for that project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW#Do_not_use_.25.7B_mingw32_bindir.7D.2F.2A_or_.25.7B_mingw32_libdir.7D.2F.2A_in_.25files_section (In reply to comment #10) > I have just noticed another bit. > > %build > make > > > does it build OK using %{?_smp_mflags} ? Yes it does - added. Updated package: Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/rpmorphan.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/rpmorphan-1.4-4.fc11.src.rpm * Wed Mar 25 2009 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> - 1.4-4 - Combine all %%doc lines into one. - Remove Makefile from %%doc section. - Use %%{?_smp_mflags}. -- 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