https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055394 --- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ocaml/ocaml-cppo.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/ocaml/ocaml-cppo-0.9.3-2.fc20.src.rpm ✗ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-20-x86_64-cppo/result/*x86*rpm ocaml-cppo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) preprocessor -> processor, predecessor, process's ocaml-cppo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessor -> processor, predecessor, process's ocaml-cppo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cppo 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. (In reply to Jerry James from comment #1) > The first eight issues are repeats from the previous two reviews: > > 1) Remove the internal dependency generator workarounds. > ... > 8) Done > 9) A '#' character at the start of a line in %description is interpreted as a > comment. Check the output of rpm -qi on the binary RPM. There is a blank > line where "#ext directives." should appear. Unfortunately, rpm does not > appear to have a sane way to escape that character, so I think you will be > forced to reflow the text. (At least, I could not figure out how to > esacpe > it; e.g. "\#ext directives." in the source appears exactly like that in > the > output.) > Turns out there are other Unicode characters that also encode similar pound signs, I've substituted one of them instead > 10) Does this package really BR ocaml-ocamldoc? Certainly, no documentation > generated by ocaml-ocamldoc is being installed. > Good point; package builds fine without this. Removed. -- 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