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=456774 --- Comment #1 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> 2010-02-20 12:54:30 EST --- (I've not checked yet if there are any mono guidelines in particular) 1) $ rpmlint libanculus-sharp.spec libanculus-sharp.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 16, tab: line 3) 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. 2) $ rpmlint ../SRPMS/libanculus-sharp-0.3.1-1.fc12.src.rpm libanculus-sharp.src: W: strange-permission libanculus-sharp.spec 0777 libanculus-sharp.src: W: strange-permission libanculus-sharp-0.3.1.tar.bz2 0777 3) $ rpmlint *x86_64.rpm libanculus-sharp.x86_64: E: no-binary libanculus-sharp.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libanculus-sharp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libanculus-sharp-doc.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libanculus-sharp-doc.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. As you say I think these are okay, I need to check a bit myself. 4) Packaage contains: /usr/lib64/libanculus-sharp/Anculus.Core.Extended.dll /usr/lib64/libanculus-sharp/Anculus.Core.dll /usr/lib64/libanculus-sharp/Anculus.Gui.dll but that directory is not owned or in a package that is pulled in. 5) Similar story for /usr/lib64/mono/libanculus-sharp 6) Similar also for /usr/lib64/mono/gac/Anculus.Core.Extended/0.3.1.0__f53db44f7305a799 Please check all the others. 7) Line 31 of the .spec file. The spacing is different to the other lines. 8) I would guess that with %{__chmod} 755 autogen.sh sh autogen.sh --prefix=%{_prefix} --libdir=%{_libdir} if you call it with sh you don't need to chmod it first. 9) In the -doc package the files are not marked as %doc which is possibly okay. They are needed at runntime? 10) The -doc package looks to be noarch so at least this sub package could me marked as noarch. 11) Why are the docs in /usr/lib64/monodoc rather than /usr/share or something? Though this starts to cross into why monodoc itself is in there. Steve p.s The monodoc package needs a bug. $ rpm -qf /usr/lib64/monodoc/monodoc.xml /usr/lib64/monodoc/ monodoc-2.4.3.1-1.fc12.x86_64 file /usr/lib64/monodoc is not owned by any package -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review