https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846913 --- Comment #30 from Jan Kaluža <jkaluza@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks for the review, I think I've fixed the bugs you've found. Spec URL: http://jkaluza.fedorapeople.org/libcommuni.spec SRPM URL: http://jkaluza.fedorapeople.org/libcommuni-1.1.2-1.fc17.src.rpm (In reply to comment #25) > [!]: MUST Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if > there is such a file. Fixed. > [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. > Note: Patch0 (desktop.patch) Source0 (communi-1.1.2.tar.gz) Fixed, Patch0 is no longer there. > [!]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. > Note: %define tardirname communi-communi-939dc37 Fixed. > Issues: > [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > Note: defattr(....) present in %files devel section. This is OK if > packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed I plan to add this package only to EPEL6 and Fedora, so no need for %defattr. > Rpmlint > ------- > communi.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided libircclient-qt-devel "communi" package should not obsolete libircclient-qt-devel, fixed. > communi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary communi This is not review blocker. > libcommuni.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided libircclient-qt > libcommuni-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided libircclient-qt-devel That's according to guidelines I think. See the Comment 1. -- 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