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=615153 --- Comment #4 from Germán Racca <gracca@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-17 00:47:22 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) Hello Ankur: First of all many thanks for the full review! :-) > Issues: > > 1. License is unclear. You'd probably be better off contacting upstream to > choose one of the two. Actually, tint2[1] and tintwizard[2] are different projects with different owners, although they are related, and this could be the reason that tint2 also ships tintwizard. Maybe I must package them separately? [1]http://code.google.com/p/tint2/ [2]http://code.google.com/p/tintwizard/ > 2.rpmlint output: > > [Ankur@localhost rpmbuild]$ rpmlint SPECS/tint2.spec > SRPMS/tint2-0.11-1.fc13.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm > tint2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttm -> tam, atm, tom > tint2.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttm -> tam, atm, tom > tint2.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tintwizard.py > tint2.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tint2conf > tint2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttm -> tam, atm, tom > 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. > > I wonder why it refers to tintwizard.py as a binary. Please check this? Because it is in /usr/bin and has executable permission? $ rpmlint -i RPMS/i686/tint2-0.11-1.fc13.i686.rpm ... tint2.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tintwizard.py Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. ... Cheers, Germán. -- 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