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=740846 --- Comment #8 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-10-26 16:56:37 EDT --- It would be good to add %{?_isa} to arch-specific Requires. The two cases of this are the -openmpi subpackage, which should have this: Requires: openmpi%{?_isa} and the -mpich2 subpackage, which should have this: Requires: mpich2%{?_isa} +: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) N: not applicable MUST: [+] rpmlint output: espresso.x86_64: W: no-documentation espresso.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary Espresso espresso-openmpi.x86_64: W: no-documentation espresso-mpich2.x86_64: W: no-documentation espresso-common.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subpackages -> sub packages, sub-packages, prepackages espresso.spec:8: W: configure-without-libdir-spec 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. All of these warnings appear to be either harmless or bogus. I wonder about the no-documentation warnings, though. Why aren't the user guide (doc/ug/ug.pdf) and tutorial (doc/tutorials/tut2/tut2.pdf) included in one of these packages or in a -doc subpackage? [+] follows package naming guidelines [+] spec file base name matches package name [+] package meets the packaging guidelines [+] package uses a Fedora approved license [+] license field matches the actual license [+] license file is included in %doc [+] spec file is in American English [+] spec file is legible [+] sources match upstream: md5sum is f277a9adc6e16ca530f46dd74c3c5826 for both [+] package builds on at least one primary arch (tried x86_64) [N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch [-] all build requirements in BuildRequires: need autoconf and automake [N] spec file handles locales properly [N] ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] no bundled copies of system libraries [+] no relocatable packages [+] package owns all directories that it creates [+] no files listed twice in %files [+] proper permissions on files [+] consistent use of macros [+] code or permissible content [N] large documentation in -doc [+] no runtime dependencies in %doc [N] header files in -devel [N] static libraries in -static [N] .so in -devel [N] -devel requires main package [+] package contains no libtool archives [N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install [+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages [+] all filenames in UTF-8 SHOULD: [N] query upstream for license text [N] description and summary contain available translations [-] package builds in mock: tried fedora-rawhide-i386: the build failed because autoreconf was not found. [+] package builds on all supported arches: tried i386 and x86_64 [+] package functions as described: minimal testing only [+] sane scriptlets [+] subpackages require the main package: actually require the -common subpackage and mandated by the MPI packaging guidelines [N] placement of pkgconfig files [N] file dependencies versus package dependencies [=] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts -- 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