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=796074 Cole Robinson <crobinso@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |crobinso@xxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |crobinso@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |needinfo?(jsynacek@redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #2 from Cole Robinson <crobinso@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-02-22 10:52:56 EST --- I'll take this. Minor issue: there's some trailing whitespace in the spec. Some in the description and some after %preun Here's the fedora-review issues output when run on f16: [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Invalid buildroot found: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-buildroot Just drop the Buildroot from the spec, maybe it was just added for local test purposes? If that's the case, setup rpmmacros like cat ~/.rpmmacros %_topdir /home/crobinso/src/rpmroot [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 These two aren't required since it doesn't sound like this is heading for EPEL, rather RHEL proper. These changes may need to be made for RHEL though (not blocking this review). [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint numad-debuginfo-0.5-1.fc18.i686.rpm numad-debuginfo.i686: E: debuginfo-without-sources 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Not quite sure what the problem is here rpmlint numad-0.5-1.fc18.src.rpm numad.src: W: strange-permission numad1.patch 0600L making it 644 will probably silence this numad.src: W: invalid-url Source0: numad-0.5.tar.xz Not an error per-se, but since you seem to own the fedorahosted git repo, why not just make a 0.5 tarball and upload it to fedorahosted? See the FAQ for publishing releases. https://fedorahosted.org/web/faq Otherwise since you are doing a git snapshot, you should follow the (more complex) git naming guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages I'd recommend just cutting an upstream tarball. numad.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib I assume this has to do with systemd unit files, so safe to ignore. Also, can you provide more info about the patch in the spec file? Why isn't it upstream? Will it ever be upstream? What are the two difference licenses the spec comment talks about? Should there be two licenses in the License field? -- 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