https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=832504 --- Comment #6 from Peter Jones <pjones@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #5) > Everything builds ok on f17 in mock now. Not sure what was up. rawhide still > doesn't build, but that looks like a rawhide breakage unrelated to this > package. > > OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: > (no md5sum, but diff -Nur shows no non timestamp differences in checkout). > > OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. > OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. > OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. > OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. > OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. > OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions) > See below - No rpmlint output. > OK - final provides and requires are sane. > > > rpmlint says: > > pesign.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version} > > Use %% ? > > pesign.src: W: invalid-url Source0: > https://github.com/vathpela/pesign/pesign-0.2.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not > Found > > Drop the url entirely since this is just a checkout? > Source0: pesign-0.2.tar.bz2 Fair enough. > pesign.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.1-1 ['0.2-1.fc17', > '0.2-1'] > > Add changelog entry for 0.2. ;) And 0.2-3 of course :) > pesign.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/pki/pesign 0700L > pesign.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/popt.d/pesign.popt > pesign.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pesign > > All can be ignored. > Man page would be nice, but not a blocker. Waiting on upstream for that. Hopefully week after next :) > Fix up the rpmlint stuff before checking in and this package is APPROVED. Sweet, thanks. -- 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