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=226008 Miloslav Trmač <mitr@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Miloslav Trmač <mitr@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-02 19:08:33 EST --- rpmlint: > libgcrypt.src: W: strange-permission hobble-libgcrypt 0755 > libgcrypt.x86_64: W: no-documentation Include license text at the very minimum - see below; including AUTHORS ChangeLog NEWS README (?) THANKS TODO wouldn't hurt either. > libgcrypt.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /lib64/.libgcrypt.so.11.hmac See recent discussion on fedora-devel * libgcrypt-devel contains files under GPLv2+: gcrypt.{texi,info},dumpsexp.c => use "License: GPLv2+", or perhaps better "License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+", or split the package * libgcrypt should contain %doc COPYING.LIB, libgcrypt-devel %doc COPYING * "The BuildRoot value MUST be below %{_tmppath}/ and MUST contain at least %{name}, %{version} and %{release}:" - %release is not used * Can you avoid %makeinstall? src/Makefile.in seems to support DESTDIR. * Use %global instead of %define * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review