https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735944 Mario Blättermann <mario.blaettermann@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mario.blaettermann@xxxxxxxx | |m --- Comment #9 from Mario Blättermann <mario.blaettermann@xxxxxxxxx> --- Some initial comments before I give it a try on Koji: Probably no debuginfo will be created, due to the nature of Mono software: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Debuginfo?rd=Packaging/Debuginfo#Useless_or_incomplete_debuginfo_packages_due_to_other_reasons This is addressed by your comment in spec line 13. OK so far, but either you uncomment the line (if debuginfo will be usable in this certain case) or you have to escape the % signs with another one to make rpmlint happy. In some odd cases, even macros in comments could be expanded and lead to unexpected results. Requires: %{name} = %{version} has to be Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} The isa tag needs to be added because your package is multiarch. The release tag makes sure that the -devel package will be updated with the base package. %defattr(-,root,root,-) is applicable for EPEL 5 only. As the second changelog entry says, you don't plan to package for EPEL 5, please remove that lines in the file lists. In the file lists, %{_prefix}/lib has to replaced with %{_libdir}. Otherwise we would get a "hardcoded library path" warning from rpmlint. Or can you explain why you have to use /usr/lib explicitely instead of /usr/lib and /usr/lib64 depending on the package architecture? %changelog * Thu May 02 2013 Armando Basile <hmandevteam@xxxxxxxxx> 0.1.8.5-1.fc18 In the %changelog section, it is unneeded to mention the distribution release. A simple "0.1.8.5-1" is sufficient here. Doesn't matter which Fedora release is pointed by your spec, one could rebuild your package for f17 or f19, whatever, so that your "f18" tag becomes useless. Requires: pcsc-lite Requires: pcsc-lite-libs The latter is not needed, it is required by pcsc-lite anyway. You are using both tabs and whitespaces in your spec. It's rather cosmetic, but has to be fixed. I recommend spaces, that way the spec looks the same in any text editor, regardless of the configured tab width. -- 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=POANCNJYW1&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review