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=629744 Alex Hudson (Fedora Address) <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |712069 --- Comment #7 from Alex Hudson (Fedora Address) <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-06-09 08:33:14 EDT --- Sorry, I was just in the process of cleaning it up further! Spec URL: http://alexh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sparkleshare/sparkleshare.spec SRPM URL: http://alexh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sparkleshare/sparkleshare-0.2.1-1.fc15.src.rpm I've also added a dependency to bug #712069, which separates out the SmartIrc4Net library which is otherwise included within SparkleShare. The packages are rpmlint clean: $ rpmlint SPECS/sparkleshare.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint SRPMS/sparkleshare-0.2.1-1.fc15.src.rpm sparkleshare.src: W: file-size-mismatch sparkleshare-0.2.1.tar.gz = 1413871, https://github.com/downloads/hbons/SparkleShare/sparkleshare-0.2.1.tar.gz = 1521334 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. This warning is because I have packaged an updated copy of the source, which includes the patch to separate out SmartIrc4Net. I wrote this patch for SparkleShare, and I'm hopeful that a 0.2.2 release won't be too far away. Usually I would have done this via a patch, but it's a change early in the build system which would be a substantial patch to the released (i.e., post-autogen) tarball. $ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/sparkleshare-0.2.1-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm sparkleshare.x86_64: E: no-binary sparkleshare.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. This error/warning I believe is normal for a Mono-based app, as the binaries are not detected as such. -- 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