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=517849 --- Comment #9 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2010-08-21 11:19:40 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > NEEDSWORK > [1] rpmlint complaints: > mpiwrappers.src: W: no-url-tag Because this is a Fedora-specific wrapper package heavily relying on Fedora specifics. > mpiwrappers.src:83: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} > mpiwrappers.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean Hmm, these are the same bug. Fixed. I wonder what was my reason. Fixed in 1-2. > mpiwrappers.src:30: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 30, tab: > line 9) Fixed in 1-2. > mpiwrappers.x86_64: E: no-binary Still, this is an architecture specific package due to file ownership (%{_libdir}). I would add architecture dependent requires, but they're not provided in EPEL 4 and 5 since RPM is too old. > mpiwrappers.x86_64: W: no-documentation None exists. > mpiwrappers-lam.x86_64: E: devel-dependency lam-devel The package is a wrapper, so this is kind of obligatory to have. > mpiwrappers-lam.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/modulefiles/lam-x86_64 > mpiwrappers-lam.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/rpm/macros.lam-x86_64 These are not config files. > [2] Package name must follow Naming Guidelines, which states the name should > match the upstream tarball / project name; There is no upstream project, since this is a Fedora specific package. See for instance kde-filesystem. > [3] Source within SRPM must match the upstream source; Not applicable. The rest were duplicates of these. -- 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