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=525274 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-24 15:26:11 EDT --- Thanks for the submission. I know you used RPM Stubby to generate the .spec from an Eclipse feature.xml and it did a nice job :) There are only a few issues with the review and they're listed below on the lines beginning with an X. Please fix them, bump the release and add a comment in your .spec, and post new .spec and SRPM URLs here. Once I've verified it's fixed, we can move along with the process. Thanks. X please add a comment about the installation location (see below; the part about /usr/lib, dependencies, etc.) X please capitalize the beginning of your changelog entry Rest of review: - licensing good - fetch script is fine (contents match when I generate it myself) - BRs/Rs okay - macro usage fine - %files fine - builds and runs fine - rpmlint not okay (but see above): $ rpmlint eclipse-callgraph-0.0.1-1.fc11.i586.rpm eclipse-callgraph.i586: E: no-binary eclipse-callgraph.i586: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. - the warning is fine (we have to have this be arch-dependent due to its dependence on the arch-dependent CDT and therefore it must be in %{_libdir}) - there is no binary for the same reason as above $ rpmlint eclipse-callgraph-0.0.1-1.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- 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