https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1003089 --- Comment #28 from Cole Robinson <crobinso@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Group : Applications/File RPM groups are basically worthless, but maybe change this to Applications/System like openstack-nova uses (though openstack-swift uses Development/Languages ??) [X]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed I assume defattr is there because this package will be built for el6, similar to openstack and gluster, so that makes sense. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/swift(openstack-swift), /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gluster(glusterfs-api) Package wants to own /etc/swift, which is already owned by openstack-swift. So drop. So drop %dir %{_confdir} . Same with the gluster path, I think you can just change %{python_sitelib}/gluster to %{python_sitelib}/gluster/swift Interesting rpmlint output: glusterfs-openstack-swift.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided glusterfs-swift-plugin glusterfs-openstack-swift.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided glusterfs-swift glusterfs-openstack-swift.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided glusterfs-ufo glusterfs-openstack-swift.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided glusterfs-swift-container glusterfs-openstack-swift.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided glusterfs-swift-object glusterfs-openstack-swift.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided glusterfs-swift-proxy glusterfs-openstack-swift.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided glusterfs-swift-account Since this doesn't appear to just be a package rename for the gluster bits, plain obsolete is fine here glusterfs-openstack-swift.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gluster/swift/common/middleware/gswauth/setup.py 0644L /usr/bin/python Ah, a forked package buried way down in the module hierarchy :) My recommendation is to re-organize this in some less crazy way upstream, but in the short term, just %exclude those nested setup.py* and test_swauth since they aren't important. Also, seconding mrunge's suggestion of adding a %check section that runs your packages unit tests, but it's not a hard requirement. -- 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