https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686 --- Comment #9 from Michael Cronenworth <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Even though you are not packaging a traditional MinGW package, you are using the MinGW toolkit to build it so I feel it should try to follow the MinGW packaging guidelines. $ md5sum Downloads/wine-mono-0.0.4.tar.gz 61c5ee49b8847c4dccfdab1fbc0706ae Downloads/wine-mono-0.0.4.tar.gz $ md5sum rpmbuild/SOURCES/wine-mono-0.0.4.tar.gz 61c5ee49b8847c4dccfdab1fbc0706ae rpmbuild/SOURCES/wine-mono-0.0.4.tar.gz $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/wine-mono.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint Downloads/wine-mono-0.0.4-6.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint /home/michael/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/wine-mono-0.0.4-6.fc17.noarch.rpm wine-mono.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/wine-mono-0.0.4/mono-COPYING.LIB wine-mono.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/wine-mono-0.0.4/mono-mcs-LICENSE.GPL wine-mono.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/wine-mono-0.0.4/mono-mcs-LICENSE.LGPL 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings. + OK ! Needs to be looked into / Not applicable [+] Compliant with generic Fedora Packaging Guidelines [/] Source package name is prefixed with 'mingw-' [!] Spec file starts with %{?mingw_package_header} [!] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem >= 95 is in the .spec file [!] BuildRequires: mingw64-filesystem >= 95 is in the .spec file [/] Spec file contains %package sections for both mingw32 and mingw64 packages [+] Binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are noarch [/] Spec file contains %{?mingw_debug_package} after the %description section [/] Uses one of the macros %mingw_configure, %mingw_cmake, or %mingw_cmake_kde4 to configure the package [/] Uses the macro %mingw_make to build the package [/] Uses the macro %mingw_make to install the package [/] If package contains translations, the %mingw_find_lang macro must be used [/] No binary package named mingw-$pkgname is generated [/] Libtool .la files are not bundled [/] .def files are not bundled [/] Man pages which duplicate native package are not bundled [/] Info files which duplicate native package are not bundled [/] Provides of the binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are equal [/] Requires of the binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are equal The incorrect-fsf-address rpmlint warning should be reported upstream. Please check the items I marked that need looking into before I pass the review: -%?mingw_package_header should be %{?mingw_package_header} -The BRs for the filesystem packages are missing. -- 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