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=713320 --- Comment #14 from Pádraig Brady <p@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-07-05 10:41:41 EDT --- Updated srpm for review: Spec URL: http://www.pixelbeat.org/patches/oz.spec SRPM URL: http://www.pixelbeat.org/patches/oz-0.5.0-2.fc15.src.rpm (In reply to comment #13) > (new) fedora guidelines say: > + BuildRoot is unnecessary, just get rid of it > + %defattr, ditto > + %clean, ditto Done > [ FAIL ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the > actual license > > spec still says LGPL2, COPYING says LGPL2.1 I responded to this previously. It seems that these 2 are synonymous. If I use 2.1 in the spec, rpmlint will complain. See: http://www.redhat.com/a-packaging/2008-November/msg00047.html and: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing (if you search for "LGPLv2" there, you see that it covers both LGPLv2 and LGPLv2.1) > [ OK ] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf > %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). Note that conflicts with the request to remove %clean (which I've done) > [ FAIL ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. - clalance: minor, > but Source0 can be changed to use %{name}-%{version}. %{name}/%{version} now used. thanks! -- 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