Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906473 --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #1) > there seems to be a tiny difference between your spec file and the spec file > in the your srpm: > I trust you'll fix the srpm version in the next update. Fixed! > erlang-ranch.x86_64: E: no-binary > erlang-ranch.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib See explanation below. > erlang-ranch.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 > /usr/share/doc/erlang-ranch-0.6.1/doc/overview.edoc Fixed! > The no-binary error seems more significant. According to: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#no-binary > > E: foo-package no-binary > The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain > any binaries. > Solution:- Add BuildArchitectures: noarch to the SPEC file > > Since erlang beam files should be cross-platform compatible, this seems to > be applicable to me. If this is not the case for this package, please > explain why. That's a typical Erlang's packaging-related shortcoming. The problem is that Erlang binaries (even if they are technically arch-independent as in this case) *must* be installed into %{_libdir} which is arch-dependent. Therefore the entire package becomes arch-dependent. So I can't just mark this package as noarch now, and this issue should be ignored for now. Actually I think I will fix this in the future, but definitely not in Fedora 19 release. New src,rpm: * http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlyvideo/erlang-ranch-0.6.1-2.fc19.src.rpm * http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlyvideo/erlang-ranch.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dDN6jFpWFE&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review