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=225989 Jon Ciesla <limburgher@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|davidz@xxxxxxxxxx | --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-04-09 14:24:20 EDT --- - rpmlint checks return: libbonobo.spec:25: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes bonobo-activation libbonobo.spec:42: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes bonobo-activation-devel The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if possible. Fix. libbonobo.spec:72: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/bonobo-2.0/samples/bonobo-echo-2 A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}. libbonobo.spec:87: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/bonobo/servers A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}. libbonobo.spec:106: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/bonobo/servers A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}. libbonobo.spec:107: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/bonobo A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}. Fix. libbonobo.spec: W: %ifarch-applied-patch Patch0: libbonobo-multishlib.patch A patch is applied inside an %ifarch block. Patches must be applied on all architectures and may contain necessary configure and/or code patch to be effective only on a given arch. Fix if possible. Ignorable spelling error. libbonobo.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion bonobo-activation obsoletes bonobo-activation = 2.32.1-2.fc18 The package obsoletes itself. This is known to cause errors in various tools and should thus be avoided, usually by using appropriately versioned Obsoletes and/or Provides and avoiding unversioned ones. libbonobo-devel.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion bonobo-activation-devel obsoletes bonobo-activation-devel = 2.32.1-2.fc18 The package obsoletes itself. This is known to cause errors in various tools and should thus be avoided, usually by using appropriately versioned Obsoletes and/or Provides and avoiding unversioned ones. Fix. libbonobo.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/bonobo-activation/bonobo-activation-config.xml A configuration file is stored in your package without the noreplace flag. A way to resolve this is to put the following in your SPEC file: %config(noreplace) /etc/your_config_file_here Fix if reasonable. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license ( GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ ) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files - post/postun ldconfig ok - devel requires base package n-v-r So it's just the rpmlitn bits, let me know if you want me to commit anything. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review