https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=963670 --- Comment #2 from Karsten Hopp <karsten@xxxxxxxxxx> --- > rpmlint libzfcphbaapi-* libzfcphbaapi.s390x: E: explicit-lib-dependency libhbaapi libzfcphbaapi.s390x: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) zFCP -> Pfc libzfcphbaapi.s390x: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zFCP -> Pfc libzfcphbaapi.s390x: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow libzfcphbaapi.s390x: W: obsolete-not-provided s390utils-libzfcphbaapi libzfcphbaapi.s390x: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libzfcphbaapi-2.1.so exit@GLIBC_2.2 libzfcphbaapi.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) zFCP -> Pfc libzfcphbaapi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zFCP -> Pfc libzfcphbaapi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow libzfcphbaapi-docs.s390x: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) zFCP -> Pfc libzfcphbaapi-docs.s390x: W: summary-not-capitalized C zFCP HBA API Library -- Documentation libzfcphbaapi-docs.s390x: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zFCP -> Pfc libzfcphbaapi-docs.s390x: W: obsolete-not-provided s390utils-libzfcphbaapi-docs 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 12 warnings. > rpm -qpR libzfcphbaapi-2.1-1.fc19.s390x.rpm | grep libHBAAPI libHBAAPI.so.2()(64bit) I don't care about the spelling errors, all of them are special words unkown to the checker. [MUST] the explicit-lib-dependency needs to be fixed [SHOULD] add a 'Provides: s390utils-libzfcphbaapi' to libzfcphbaapi [SHOULD] add a 'Provides: s390utils-libzfcphbaapi-docs' to libzfcphbaapi-docs [SHOULD] The 'shared-lib-calls-exit' warning looks suspicious, and needs to be looked at. [MUST] The spec file doesn't consistently use macros vs. variables. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT should be replaced by %{buildroot} $RPM_OPT_FLAGS should be replaced by %{optflags} [OK] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [OK] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec [OK] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license [OK] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [OK] the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc [OK] The spec file must be written in American English [OK] The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [OK] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source [OK] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpm on all supported archs [OK] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [SHOULD] as this package contains a shared library, ldconfig should probably be run in %post and %postun [OK] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries [OK] A package must own all directories that it creates [OK] The package must contain code, or permissable content. [OK] Permissions on files must be set properly. [OK] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives [OK] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. (tested in koji) [OK] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [OK] your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts -- 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=aVDOd3yVMN&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review