https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811330 Patrick C. F. Ernzer <pcfe@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(than@xxxxxxxxxx) --- Comment #9 from Patrick C. F. Ernzer <pcfe@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Than, thanks. Much appreciated. Seems rpmlint on my build box is way less strict than it should be. (In reply to comment #8) > rpmlint outputs: [...] > pcsc-cyberjack.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) chipcard -> chip card, > chip-card, chipboard the next release of the spec file will use 'chip card' [...] > pcsc-cyberjack.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US contactless -> > con tactless, con-tactless, contact less after a dictionary lookup, I decided to use 'non-contact' for the next release [...] > * i'm not sure if the descriptions are correct in en_US. Patrick, could you > please check again? You're right, they did need fixing. > > pcsc-cyberjack.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag > /etc/udev/rules.d/92-cyberjack.rules > > * please add %config(noreplace) done > > pcsc-cyberjack.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib64/pcsc/drivers/libifd-cyberjack.bundle/Contents/Linux/libifd- > cyberjack.so > > * it should be included in devel-package, or just remove it if there's no > devel package This one I am not sure about, I _think_ the .so needs to remain in that location (compare pcsc-lite-ccid). But it will need someone more competent in PC/SC than me to confirm. > pcsc-cyberjack-cjflash.x86_64: W: no-documentation > pcsc-cyberjack-cjflash.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cjflash > > * your package doesn't have man pages, please ask upstream to add man page > in the future, it's only should fix. I've asked upstream via their web form. there is a small section about cjflash in the README.* files of the main package. As this sub-package depends on the main one, should I maybe add a README.Fedora to the sub-package that points to the main's README? > pcsc-cyberjack-examples.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/share/doc/pcsc-cyberjack-examples-3.99.5final.SP03/verifypin_ascii.c > pcsc-cyberjack-examples.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/share/doc/pcsc-cyberjack-examples-3.99.5final.SP03/verifypin_fpin2.c > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings > > * the Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or [...] Also asked this from upstream. Do I remember correctly that I am NOT to patch these two files until upstream released an updated version or is it OK for me to patch the address in this version and then revert my patch once upstream fixed it? -- 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