https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812659 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- OK, looks pretty good. Indeed, the Par license is acceptable even though rpmlint will complain about it until it gets an update. Still one rpmlint complaint you missed, though: par-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package and indeed, the debuginfo package is missing sources. The compiler is called with the proper flags, so at some point the binary is being stripped. Turns out you're doing that yourself: install -s par %{buildroot}/%{_bindir} You must not do this. Just remove the '-s' from that line, so that the file with debugging info gets installed and rpmbuild can do the proper debuginfo extraction. The only other thing I see after a quick review is that the summary is slightly pretentions. It is generally best to avoid advertising-like statements in package summaries, since they don't add anything that the user might be looking for. The "but better" doesn't really serve to describe what the package does. So one thing that must be fixed, and one minor thing. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 33dcdae905f4b4267b4dc1f3efb032d79705ca8d2122e17efdecfd8162067082 Par152.tar.gz cc2e2c7943b73d9ea893717f669ec7f1665188dd8bedd45aeaca027c30b056bb par_1.52-i18n.3.diff.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. ? summary is a bit pretentious. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package (in par.doc) * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none). * compiler flags are appropriate. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. X debuginfo package is empty. X rpmlint has a valid complaint. * final provides and requires are sane: par = 1.52-6.fc18 par(x86-64) = 1.52-6.fc18 = (none) * no bundled libraries. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- 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