https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058163 --- Comment #2 from Jon Disnard <jdisnard@xxxxxxxxx> --- 0. rpmlint issue resolved rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/glmark2.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. 1. Removed depreciated group tags. 2. Added justification/rational for sub-packaged in .spec. Please say if the rational is reasonable in your opinion. 3. Removed extraneous BuildRequires. 3*. simplified subpackage handling to not use -n. 4. Fixed summaries, and renamed -assets to -common 5. added versioned subpkg dependencies. 6. Actually libjpeg-turbo is preferable for performance, and other reasons. This is the one and only that I would resist, only because performance is important in benchmark. 7. All BRs that have .pc files were convered to pkgconfig(foo) style. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6479303 updated spec files here: http://parasense.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SPECS/glmark2.spec updated SRPMS here (all three supported branch): http://parasense.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SRPMS/ updated RPMS here: http://parasense.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/RPMS/ and sources: http://parasense.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/SOURCES/ Additionally I've added two more sub-packages for KMS graphics, might be going crazy on sub-packges for single bins... my first package with sub packages, but the rational is each bin is identical but with some fundamentally diff features in-built during compilation. These are useful to embedded developers who may only have openGL es2 DRM hardware... no x11, no good regular openGL... just es2 extensions, etc... Please check it out and let me know. Thanks -- 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