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=669010 --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-01-21 14:56:10 EST --- Yes, it's perfectly OK that rpmlint complain about no-documentation when you don't actually have any documentation. You shouldn't invent or duplicate some just to quite rpmlint. Sometimes you can decide that some documentation should go in the -devel package and some in the main package, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Generally for summaries (and especially for something like a library that users will rarely install on their own anyway) there's not much in indicating what language the package is written in. It's certainly not worth arguing over, though. Just imagine that you installed some application and it pulled in this library. Does the summary provide enough information for you to make a quick judgment about whether you really want that install to go ahead? Otherwise this looks OK to me. However, I just now noticed your message about smoketest.c. If at all possible it would be nice to get that built so it could be run in a %check section. Just adding %check make check is sufficient and gives a bunch of useful information. Anyway, with that, this is about done. I need to look over your pre-reviews and then I'll push the necessary buttons. -- 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