https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104746 --- Comment #10 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> --- Christopher, that's https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros with a few explanations. Nowadays it is not mandatory anymore to use path macros. For paths which don't change often (or which have been pretty much constant over many years), there is no benefit in using macros. Especially not if the packaged software hardcodes its installation paths somewhere. However, if parts of the build framework (such as a "configure" script) accept definitions from within the spec file (such as with the %configure macro or options to "make"), it can be beneficial to reuse the same path macros inside the %files list(s). > And dont mark these as %doc, they will be marked automatically by RPM. Which means it's not a strict "don't", but nice to know. $ rpm -E %__docdir_path /usr/share/doc:/usr/share/man:/usr/share/info:/usr/share/gtk-doc/html::/usr/share/man:/usr/share/info:/usr/share/javadoc:/usr/doc:/usr/man:/usr/info:/usr/X11R6/man > fedora-review [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/soscleaner-0.1 [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/soscleaner-0.1 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories It could be fixed with an added %dir entry for /usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version} or by including the entire directory instead only the LICENSE file. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jduncan/1104746-soscleaner/licensecheck.txt https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_version.22_licenses > Rpmlint soscleaner.src:17: W: setup-not-quiet That refers to using "%setup -q …" and really is not an issue. Non-quiet %setup output can be helpful in a build.log. soscleaner.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/SOSCleaner.py 0644L /usr/bin/env That's a strange error message: rpmlint -i … would tell '''This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits, otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere.''' Since it's the Python Modules' path and not a path for executables, the shebang is harmless ... but useless. Probably that's why rpmlint points it out. -- 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