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=481536 David Nalley <david@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(ngompa13@xxxxxxxx | |m) --- Comment #5 from David Nalley <david@xxxxxxx> 2009-04-29 22:14:17 EDT --- [ke4qqq@nalleyt61 SPECS]$ rpmlint ./enano.spec ./enano.spec: W: no-%build-section 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. You must at least have the %build section and then put a comment in that section to make rpmlint shut up. I know there is no real building going on - but it will make things cleaner. [ke4qqq@nalleyt61 SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/enano-1.1.6-4.20090415hg4babf8545826.fc10.src.rpm enano.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary Enano enano.src: W: no-%build-section 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. You repeated the name of the package in the summary (and of course the no build section) Please clean that up - the description generally doesn't need to refer to the package name itself. [ke4qqq@nalleyt61 SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/enano-1.1.6-4.20090415hg4babf8545826.fc10.noarch.rpm enano.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary Enano enano.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.6-4 ['1.1.6-4.20090415hg4babf8545826.fc10', '1.1.6-4.20090415hg4babf8545826'] enano.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/enano/.htaccess.new 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. If we can fix the description and the build section I think it's good to go from that particular perspective. WRT to the other packages being included: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_libraries And while your package isn't Java take a look at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#Pre-built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software I tell you this because I also have a web app that I packaged that essentially had the same problems, and I had to package up the included software that's separate. >From my brief analysis there are at least two packages there that appear to be directly verbatim from another 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