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=643391 --- Comment #1 from Petr Sabata <psabata@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-10-15 10:10:45 EDT --- rpmlint results seem okay (although the output is different for RPMs and SPEC; might be an rpmlint issue): $ rpmlint pytrailer-0.3.1-1.fc13.noarch.rpm pytrailer.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, waw, wow 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint pytrailer-0.3.1-1.fc13.src.rpm pytrailer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, waw, wow 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint pytrailer.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. The package name is okay. The SPEC file name matches the package name and its %name. The package uses an approved license (LGPLv2) and seems legible. Provided SRPM sources match the upstream sources. Package builds fine (noarch). BuildRequires looks legit. The %files section lists files correctly. The package meets the packaging guidelines. Issues: Don't mix RPM macros and variables. Change $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to %buildroot. Upstream version license is LGPLv3 but the SPEC files states it's LGPLv2. -- 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