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=520204 Garrett Holmstrom <gholms.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gholms.fedora@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Garrett Holmstrom <gholms.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-08 17:41:48 EDT --- I am not a sponsor (or even a packager yet), however here are some informal comments based on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines rpmlint reports: aspell-ro.src:26: W: configure-without-libdir-spec - This one's OK because it isn't an autoconf-based configure. aspell-ro.x86_64: E: no-binary aspell-ro.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib - As far as I know these are OK simply because it's an aspell dictionary package. aspell-ro-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package - I don't think you need a debuginfo package for aspell dictionaries. If you add the line "%define debug_package %{nil}" to your spec file it won't try to build one. -- 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