https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991639 --- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> --- Confirmed. Macro-madness is not a blocker according to the guidelines, but all those macros will cause you some headaches eventually. I won't approve a package that redefines several implicitly defined macros. Examples: > %define version 0.1.2 The "Version" tag already defines %{version}, so replace Version: %{version} with Version: 0.1.2 and you can use %{version} anywhere you like. > %define release 1 This is wrong and misleading. Here you assign the value 1 to %release, but further down in the spec you do Release: %{release}%{?dist} which defines %{release} to this new value. The old definition is lost. Mass-rebuild scripts also will have a lot of fun trying to figure out whether to modify (= "bump") the Release tag or the definition of "release". Please don't make it so complicated. > Url: %{url} "URL: http://efigue.foss.free.fr"; and you're done. Well, you reuse %{url} for the Source0 tag, but hey, the "URL" tag defines %{url}, too. This is not an obfuscation contest, but a rather simple package which should come with a rather simple and readable spec file. > %define name python-facct Again, the "Name" tag defines %{name}. There is really no need to redefine these macros at the top of the spec file, becoming a crowded place, and you would need to scroll back'n'forth to locate where and how those macros are used throughout the spec file. * Run rpmlint (or rpmlint -I for more helpful output) on the src.rpm and all built rpms. Feel free to ignore obvious false positives in the report, but fix anything else. Preferably add a comment here about whether/when you think what rpmlint reports is correct or incorrect. $ rpmlint python-facct-0.1.2-1.fc19.src.rpm python-facct.src: W: file-size-mismatch facct-0.1.2.tar.gz = 316035, http://efigue.foss.free.fr/facct-0.1.2.tar.gz = 316042 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > %files -f %{_tmppath}/INSTALLED_FILES > %files -f %{srcname}.lang This is severely flawed. Just query the package contents to verify what is included currently: $ rpmls -p python-facct-0.1.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm|grep ^d drwxr-xr-x /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/facct-0.1.2-py2.7.egg-info drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/doc/python-facct-0.1.2 Directories are missing! https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories There are also duplicate files in both packages, e.g.: $ rpmls -p python3-facct-0.1.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm | grep locale -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/facct/locale/fr_FR/LC_MESSAGES/facct.mo -rw-r--r-- /usr/lib/python3.3/site-packages/facct/locale/fr_FR/LC_MESSAGES/facct.mo https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplicate_Files -- 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=wg70mjzYUM&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review