Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906481 --- Comment #7 from Jos de Kloe <josdekloe@xxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks Peter for removing this one example from the doc package. fedora-review -b 906481 -m fedora-18-x86_64 runs fine now, and I am happy with its output. No new issues are found here. The tool generates 3 rpm's on my system: erlang-cowboy-0.8.2-3.fc18.src.rpm erlang-cowboy-doc-0.8.2-3.fc18.noarch.rpm erlang-cowboy-0.8.2-3.fc18.x86_64.rpm and rpmlint outputs seem fine: $ rpmlint *.rpm erlang-cowboy.src: W: invalid-url Source0: extend-cowboy-0.8.2-0-gcc50778.tar.gz erlang-cowboy.x86_64: E: no-binary erlang-cowboy.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Finally, I tested with koji, see: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5139210 This shows a final tiny issue: BuildError: mismatch when analyzing erlang-cowboy-doc-0.8.2-3.fc18.noarch.rpm, rpmdiff output was: removed REQUIRES erlang-cowboy(x86-64) = 0.8.2-3.fc18 added REQUIRES erlang-cowboy(x86-32) = 0.8.2-3.fc18 so the noarch rpm's differ when compiled on 32 and 64 architectures because they depend on the fully versioned base package. I guess removing the %{?_isa} in the Requires lines of the doc section may solve this? -- 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=b37BMdFPg7&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review