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=807472 --- Comment #2 from Tony Asleson <tasleson@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-03-28 15:31:57 EDT --- Thanks for the review Andy! > You can make it easier by just saying %{python_sitelib} under files instead of > specifying each file, it will pick up everything under there. Same goes for > _libdir and _bindir and _includedir, and the * shouldn't be needed. Done, but the /* appears to be required. Otherwise I get rpmlint errors (standard-dir-owned-by-package ) when checking the rpm binaries. Additionally I ran into issues when I used: %{_libdir} instead of %{_libdir}/*.so.* Everything worked fine on x86_64, but failed to build clean on i686 (F16). I got some weird dependency for debug. Resulting rpm binaries were unusable. What was really weird is a mock i686 build on x86_64 worked fine. > Recommend putting a blank line between entries in the changelog Done > Recommend using either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, but not both. Done > libstoragemgmt also has commandline programs, but the description only says > this is a library. Should these go in a %{name}-utils pkg? At least mention > them, and add manpages for them down the line. Done, added more information to the description. Man pages will be forthcoming in a future release. Review files updated. I am looking for a sponsor. -- 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