https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018541 Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |bugs.michael@xxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |bugs.michael@xxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> --- A couple of minor issues: > %global svn_release 475 > > Version: 0 > Release: 0.1.svn%{svn_release}%{?dist} r475 is available as an official release snapshot since 2011. At Fedora, the pre-release versioning scheme for snapshot packages applies: Release: 0.1.20110810svn%{?dist} or Release: 0.1.20110810svn475%{?dist} If you checked out a newer snapshot from svn, the date and the revision would change. Currently, svn is at 481. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages > #Requires: It's common practise to delete unneeded items from a spec file. > %install > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT If you want to build the same spec for EL-5, consider adding a comment, because: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag > cp -v include/replaygain/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_includedir}/replaygain/ This wildcard also matches wrong files: $ rpmls -p libreplaygain-devel-0-0.1.svn475.fc21.x86_64.rpm drwxr-xr-x /usr/include/replaygain -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/replaygain/gain_analysis.h -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/replaygain/gain_analysis.hbackup lrwxrwxrwx /usr/lib64/libreplaygain.so > %files devel > %doc An empty %doc is a no-op and should be deleted. Since no licensing file is included in the tarball, consider asking upstream to add one: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text The fedora-review tool believes that the two source files *.c/*.h contain a LGPL preamble with an "incorrect FSF address": https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review