https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826483 Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- You don't need rm -rf %{buildroo(In reply to comment #5) > I installed emacs-bbdb-2.35-5.fc15 on Fedora 16 (x86_64), but, it doesn't > have bbdb-mua which is required by bbdb-identica.el. So, I am not packaging > the two *.el files for now. > Ah, OK. Just turn it on at your own discretion when they are useful -- perhaps file a bug against emacs-bbdb to ask for bbdb-mua to be included? > I have updated the latest tarball to use identica-mode-1.2.1.tar.gz sources. > Thanks > [!] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed > with good reason > > File sections already has the %defattr values. > That's the point -- %defattr(-,root,root,-) is the default, so you don't need to explicitly mention it > [!] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf > %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore) > Semi-automatic - print warning for EPEL > > I already have a %clean section that has rm -rf %{buildroot}. What warning > is > required for EPEL? > The %clean section is fine. But at the beginning of %install, you don't need to also clean the buildroot, *unless* you're targeting RHEL 5. These are minor issues though -- the defattr and cleaning buildroot in %install are just to tidy up the spec and removing redundant details. So you can do the fix-up when importing the package. Sorry for the delay, I really haven't found enough time to work on Fedora recently :( APPROVED -- 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