https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829970 --- Comment #4 from Jørn Lomax <northlomax@xxxxxxxxx> --- Now that i know how, here is a more formal (but still informal) review: There where a couple of rpmlint warnings: rpmlint synthv1-0.0.1-0.1.svn671.fc18.i686.rpm synthv1.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) subtractive -> subtracting, subt$ synthv1.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subtractive -> subtractin$ synthv1.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fx -> Fox, fax, fix synthv1.i686: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.0.1-1 ['0.0.1-0.1.svn671.fc1$ synthv1.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary synthv1_jack 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings The second to last one can be fixed by just bumping the version number in the spec. The last line is fine, as synthv1_jack does not have a man page rpmlint lv2-synthv1-0.0.1-0.1.svn671.fc18.i686.rpm lv2-synthv1.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subtractive -> subtra$ lv2-synthv1.i686: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. I would imagine it has the same documentation as synthv1, and i ll take a guess you are aware of it. [!]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: lv2-synthv1-0.0.1-0.1.svn671.fc18.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/lv2/synthv1.lv2/synthv1.so Since this .so file is application spesific, so there is no need for a -devel package. -- 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