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=508954 --- Comment #6 from Miloslav Trmač <mitr@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-01 13:53:43 EDT --- Thanks for the review. (In reply to comment #5) > - Could not find libblkid-devel as BR Provided by util-linux-ng in rawhide, see e.g. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=105530 > - you mas include the crypsetup patch via a Patch statement I do: | # http://code.google.com/p/cryptsetup/issues/detail?id=15 | Patch0: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/v/o/volume_key/cryptsetup-svn-r62.patch > - some warnings from rpmlint on binary packages > $ rpmlint volume_key-devel-0.2-1.x86_64.rpm > volume_key-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > [s4504kr@zeus result]$ rpmlint python-volume_key-0.2-1.x86_64.rpm > python-volume_key.x86_64: W: no-documentation > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. I'm afraid there really is no documentation (well, I have a sample Python program, but not a documentation of the interface). > - Verbatin copy of the license will no included in the %doc stanza See the "libs" subpackage - if any subpackage is installed, volume_key-libs will be installed as well. > - Please remove the *.la files instead of exclude it in the %files stanza Why? Does it make any difference? -- 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