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=661354 --- Comment #5 from Julian Aloofi <julian.fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-12-09 17:33:37 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) > Updated for all above items. Note that rpmlint does spit out warnings on the > cosmetic changes but I assume it just has not caught up yet :-) Yup, that's correct, and therefore rpmlint has a couple of things to complain about, but they're not relevant: [makerpm@Julians-Notebook rpmbuild]$ rpmlint ./SPECS/identicurse.spec SRPMS/identicurse-0.4.1-2.fc14.src.rpm ./RPMS/noarch/identicurse-0.4.1-2.fc14.noarch.rpm ./SPECS/identicurse.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install ./SPECS/identicurse.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean ./SPECS/identicurse.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag ./SPECS/identicurse.spec: W: no-%clean-section identicurse.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install identicurse.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean identicurse.src: W: no-buildroot-tag identicurse.src: W: no-%clean-section identicurse.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary identicurse 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [1] [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x] Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names. [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x] PreReq is not used. [x] Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [2] [x] The spec file handles locales properly. [x] Changelog in prescribed format. Mock builds the package just fine. I also saw the patch you use is already applied in upstream trunk, awesome. It wouldn't hurt to list %{_python_sitelib}/%{name}/ instead of just %{_python_sitelib}/* in %files though. Apart from that it looks all very sane. -- 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