https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868936 --- Comment #8 from Mario Blättermann <mario.blaettermann@xxxxxxxxx> --- New scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4635014 $ rpmlint -i -v * python-apsw.src: I: checking python-apsw.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pysqlite -> pyrites The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-apsw.src: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/apsw/ (timeout 10 seconds) python-apsw.src: I: checking-url http://apsw.googlecode.com/files/apsw-3.7.11-r1.zip (timeout 10 seconds) python-apsw.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://apsw.googlecode.com/files/apsw-3.7.11-r1.zip HTTP Error 404: Not Found The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. python-apsw.i686: I: checking python-apsw.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pysqlite -> pyrites The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-apsw.i686: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/apsw/ (timeout 10 seconds) python-apsw.x86_64: I: checking python-apsw.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pysqlite -> pyrites The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. python-apsw.x86_64: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/apsw/ (timeout 10 seconds) python-apsw-debuginfo.i686: I: checking python-apsw-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/apsw/ (timeout 10 seconds) python-apsw-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking python-apsw-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://code.google.com/p/apsw/ (timeout 10 seconds) python-apsw.spec: I: checking-url http://apsw.googlecode.com/files/apsw-3.7.11-r1.zip (timeout 10 seconds) python-apsw.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://apsw.googlecode.com/files/apsw-3.7.11-r1.zip HTTP Error 404: Not Found The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Ignorable issues, as already discussed. Still some objections: You have a -doc subpackage, but no files for it, that's why it won't be built. BTW, do we need such a separate doc package really? Moreover, the license there is still "zlib/libpng license" instead of just "zlib". In general, if the docs are not licensed differently from the main package, you won't need a license tag for that subpackage at all. Identical descriptions for main and doc package don't make sense. At least the -doc description should contain a hint that it is a documentation-only package. And it is up to you to decide if the doc package should depend on the main package. -- 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