https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047497 --- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng <cickumqt@xxxxxxxxx> --- 1. What's the difficulty of can't write description in the field but using a macro to accomplish? 2. -devel %description just contains one line is enough: This package contains libraries and header files for developing applications that use %{name}. 3. I don't understand why you hacked so many makefile rules there, the tweak is just nonsense if you use DESTDIR in %install. And what you've done will break the ld results in unversioned libs. 4. Please name doc subpackage as -doc but not -docs(followed by most of packages in Fedora), also entries below have mistakes: %package docs Summary: MIT Object Tcl document files Group: Development/Languages Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} BuildArch: noarch %description docs %common_desc The package contains the document files for Otcl. -1. Summary: MIT Object Tcl document files You'd better change it to: Summary: Documentation files for %{name} -2. Group: Development/Languages What? Shouldn't they be: Group: Documentation ? Or you can remove all group tag since Fedora doesn't need it anymore. -3. Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Well, this doc package is noarch, you shouldn't add %_isa macro here. -4. %description docs %common_desc Please change to sth like(you can improve the %{name} but no need to write down main package's description again here): %description doc This package contains documentation files for %{name}. 5. static libs should be removed per: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries_2 6. License file is not a problem, but others are. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review