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=587011 Miloslav Trmač <mitr@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Miloslav Trmač <mitr@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-09-02 14:28:24 EDT --- rpmlint: > tboot.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee False positive. > tboot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lcp_crtpol > tboot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary acminfo > tboot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lcp_crtpol2 > tboot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lcp_crtpconf > tboot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tpmnv_lock > tboot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary parse_err > tboot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tpmnv_relindex > tboot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lcp_readpol > tboot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lcp_mlehash > tboot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lcp_crtpollist > tboot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lcp_crtpolelt > tboot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lcp_writepol > tboot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tpmnv_defindex > tboot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tpmnv_getcap > tboot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tb_polgen > tboot.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary txt-stat Nice to have, not required. Please include the existing documentation, at least. Licensing: Pretty close to violating https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Packages_which_are_not_useful_without_external_bits , but fine IMO (the sinit modules are not used "in the runtime system environment"). Documentation: Should lctptools/Linux_LCP_Tools_User_Manual.pdf, lcptools/lcptools2.txt be included in the binary packages? All of the problems below must be fixed: Licensing: printk.h is under GPLv2, contradicting the spec license Per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Trademarks_in_Summary_or_Description , the (R) marks should "never" be present. The ExclusiveArch needs to be more general (probably using %ix86) if you want the package to be available on 32-bit x86. There should be an useful debuginfo package (do not use -s in install(1)). I'm not sure if/how to handle debuginfo for /boot/tboot.gz , perhaps check if/how the kernel package (or the old xen packages) does it. -- 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