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=542045 --- Comment #19 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-09-04 08:25:29 EDT --- 1) Invalid spec name: php-htmlpurifier-htmlpurifier.src: E: invalid-spec-name 2) php-htmlpurifier-htmlpurifier.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whitelist -> white list, white-list, whistle 3) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=3323223&name=php-htmlpurifier-htmlpurifier-doc-4.3.0-1.fc17.noarch.rpm 4) php-htmlpurifier-htmlpurifier-doc.noarch: E: htaccess-file /usr/share/doc/php-htmlpurifier-htmlpurifier-doc-4.3.0/benchmarks/.htaccess I think it may be ignored. 5) php-htmlpurifier-htmlpurifier.noarch: W: no-documentation As your doc sub-package independent and does not require main package, at least LICENSE (and may be CREDITS) should be duplicated: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing Consider also require main package and move these docs to main package instead of sub-package: CREDITS, FOCUS, LICENSE, NEWS, README, TODO, VERSION, WHATSNEW 6) Doc sub-package must go in Documentation group http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Documentation 7) If you define macros %channel, use it in Requires: php-channel(htmlpurifier) Provides: php-pear(htmlpurifier/htmlpurifier) = %{version} too. In last also %pear_name should be. 8) For what you define %php_libname and %pear_name with same content? Is %pear_name is fully enough? 9) Requires: iconv is redundant. There no package with this name in Fedora, and binary provided by glibc: $ rpm -qf `which iconv` glibc-common-2.14-5.i686 -- 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