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=683610 --- Comment #7 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-11-23 23:00:40 EST --- Unless you plan to use this spec file for EPEL also, some elements of the spec file are not needed: BuildRoot, "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" at the top of %install, the %clean script, and %defattr at the top of %files. Even though autoreconf is in the autoconf package, it can also invoke aclocal and automake, both of which are in the automake package. Since automake Requires autoconf, I suggest using a BR on automake instead of autoconf. This isn't just a hypothetical concern; here is a snippet from the mock build log: + ./autogen.sh Can't exec "aclocal": No such file or directory at /usr/share/autoconf/Autom4te/FileUtils.pm line 326. autoreconf: failed to run aclocal: No such file or directory Legend: +: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) N: not applicable MUST: [+] rpmlint output: hxtools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pam -> map, Pam, pan hxtools.spec:44: W: macro-in-comment %exclude hxtools.spec:44: W: macro-in-comment %files hxtools.spec:46: W: macro-in-comment %{_libexecdir} hxtools.spec:47: W: macro-in-comment %{_libexecdir} hxtools.spec:48: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} hxtools.spec:49: W: macro-in-comment %{_mandir} 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Those macros in comments need doubled % signs. [+] 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 [+] package builds on at least one primary arch (tried x86_64) [N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch [=] all build requirements in BuildRequires: maybe need automake, see above [N] spec file handles locales properly [N] ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] no bundled copies of system libraries [N] 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 contains available translations [+] package builds in mock: tried fedora-rawhide-i386 [+] package builds on all supported arches: tried i386 and x86_64 [+] package functions as described: minimal testing only [+] sane scriptlets [N] subpackages require the main package [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