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=502686 Patrick Monnerat <pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #6 from Patrick Monnerat <pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-20 10:03:33 EDT --- Some remarks: You should use xargs option -r in find . -name 'CVS' -print | xargs rm -rf find . -name 'a.out' -print | xargs rm -f in prevision of fure versions not containing the targets. rpmlint wsdlpull-debuginfo-1.23-1.fc10.i386.rpm wsdlpull-debuginfo.i386: E: debuginfo-without-sources 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. To fix it, use: make CFLAGS="${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}" CXXFLAGS="${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}" %{?_smp_mflags} The license is probably more complex than simply LGPLv2: from the sources, it clearly appears there's an intention of using LGPLv2+, but some Makefiles don't. In addition there are some header files and XML schemas that seem to have an MIT type license, an some .xsd (content) files are copyright OReilly. I suggest you recheck all those all license stuff and put something looking like: %license: LGPLv2 and OReilly and MIT Latex seems unused during build: BuildRequires and all associated conditionals are thus subject to deletion. There is a conflict at installation time between this package and mono-web on file /usr/bin/wsdl (at least on F10; not tested on F11 and rawhide). %doc on devel package could be left out, since it only copies files that are included in the main (required) package. %global is now preferred over %define (I know it was not the case when you wrote this spec file, but rules change). -- 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