https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862160 --- Comment #16 from Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> --- I've uploaded http://oss.sgi.com/~nathans/valkyrie-2.0.0-5.el6_3.src.rpm (and spec file in same location) which addresses the remaining issues, I think. Going through the issues/questions listed in c13... | You are intending to package this for EPEL5 right? Yes. | There is a COPYING file which contains the license. It should be listed via %doc. *nod* - done. | The INSTALL file does not look like relevant documentation, it can be removed. I read through it again, I think there's some handy tips in there for users, so I left it for now (unless someone feels strongly that it should go?). | I think, the license is GPLv2+. As you guys discussed, I think its OK as is too (no +). | fedora-review produces the following issues: | Issues: | [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 | Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging | for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed Yep, keen to support EPEL5 too. | See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions | [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the | beginning of %install. | Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 As above. | [!]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the | license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the | license(s) for the package is included in %doc. Fixed. | [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. | Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses | found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. COPYING is in %doc now, and License field looks correct as discussed. | [!]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present | Note: Invalid buildroot found: | %{_tmppath}/%{valkyrie}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) It is present, and thats because we're going for EPEL5 support. Not clear why it thinks this is invalid, perhaps its use of %{valkyrie}? Certainly appears to work correctly, and have seen this general pattern used in a number of other spec files. Hmm, bit odd. | [!]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or | $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) | Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL5 Which we will (support EPEL5), so this is fine. | [!]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. | Note: %define valkyrie %{name}-%{version} Fixed. -- 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