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=652803 --- Comment #5 from Michael J Gruber <mjg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-11-15 09:40:02 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) > Retain time stamp with > cp -p cp %{SOURCE1} . > > rpmlint output: > arkandis-gillius-fonts.src:35: W: setup-not-quiet > arkandis-gillius-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install > arkandis-gillius-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean > arkandis-gillius-fonts.src: W: no-buildroot-tag > arkandis-gillius-fonts.src: W: no-%clean-section > arkandis-gillius-fonts.src:17: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, > tab: line 17) > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. > > Add "-q" to %setup and check your tabs vs spaces. > > If you want, you can silence rpmlint by adding the cleanings and the buildroot > tag. However, this is not necessary (unless you want to build for EPEL4 or 5). All of these came from the abattis-cantarell spec. I'll retabify etc. > ** > > To my understanding this package contains two font families: GilliusADF and > GilliusADFNo2. The Font packaging guidelines at > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy > require you to make two subpackages in this case: one for GilliusADF and one > for GilliusADFNo2. See the file > /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-fonts-multi.spec > in fontpackages-devel for an example. Well, they are 2 variants of the same family. Should I still produce 2 packages? Rereading the policy "in strict mode" leads to "probably yes"... [First time reading it seemed silly to have a -common package for 3 doc files.] I'll do. -- 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