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=592579 --- Comment #20 from Mark Rader <msrader@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-06-06 12:47:50 EDT --- David I really think you should prefix the filename of Patch1 with "frama-c-". Otherwise, if someone builds many packages inside a shared rpmbuild/SOURCES directory, there's a (tiny) risk that this will overlap with something else. The risk is tiny, but better to avoid the question. Done FAIL. The "License" says "GPL+". I found "GPLv2+", but no "GPL+". I think you should remove the "GPL+", or find out why it's there. removed FAIL. Under %files, need to add entries for the license files that are there. E.G.: %doc licenses/LGPLv2.1 %doc licenses/LGPLv3 %doc licenses/Q_MODIFIED_LICENSE %doc cil/LICENSE done FAIL. These files are in the main package *AND* in the -devel package: /usr/share/man/man1/frama-c.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/frama-c-gui.1.gz You can find duplicates by doing: cd ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/ARCH # Substitute "ARCH" for your architecture rpm -qlp frama-c-1.4-2.fc11.*.rpm | sort > ,1 rpm -qlp frama-c-devel-1.4-2.fc11.*.rpm | sort > ,2 comm -12 ,1 ,2 done -- 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