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=638906 --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-10-04 10:23:15 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > [ ?? ] owns the directories it creates. > What owns /usr/lib64/erlang and /usr/lib64/erlang/lib? Is this package in the > requires? ... > Add the license text as a doc and clarify my understanding of the directories > and then we will be good to go. * both /usr/lib64/erlang/lib and /usr/lib64/erlang/ are owned by erlang-erts (listed in runtime Requires) * I'm afraid I can't add license text to %docs because according to guidelines I can (and I must) do it only *if* upstream explicitly adds it to the sources. However I added README file. I also ensured that beam-file is generated with debug_info (it doesn't hurt runtime performance but allows users to provide some static analysis in runtime). New package and spec-file: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-gen_leader.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-gen_leader-0-0.2.fc12.src.rpm rpmlint output is much better now: Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/erlang-gen_leader-0-0.2.fc12.ppc.rpm erlang-gen_leader.ppc: E: no-binary erlang-gen_leader.ppc: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: -- 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