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=767305 Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |steve.traylen@xxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |steve.traylen@xxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> 2011-12-13 14:45:42 EST --- (1) You do a complicated CFLAGS=... CPPFLAGS=... /configure ... will a %configure macros not just do the same job and more than you anticipate? Future proof. (2) You use modern and old %{optflags} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS ..my tip , stop using $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and use %{buildroot} but (2) can be solved by (1) of course but use %{buildroot} :-) (3) The patch: Patch0: litmus-i18n.patch Is there an upstream bug or a reason why it is being added. It needs an explanation basically, please add a comment. An upstream bug is the best but it needs a reason why it is not and upstream bug(feature request) otherwise. Other than that: rpmlint ./litmus-* is completely clean. The doc files look fine... A simple package, just needs the above points answered and done. Steve. -- 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