https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1107441 --- Comment #2 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Florian "der-flo" Lehner from comment #1) > [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the > beginning of %install. > Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required > ---> Please remove 'rm -rf %{buildroot}' Sorry, I should have mentioned that I am planning to build this for EPEL 5. (I know I didn't do this properly - I need to add some additional stuff that is no longer part of the emacs generated template to get it to properly build on EPEL 5.) > [!]: Permissions on files are set properly. > ---> Please replace 'install -p -m 644' with 'install -pm 0644' Why is "-pm" better than "-p -m"? Personally I think that stacking all option together instead of listing them separately obscures what you are doing and makes the call harder to understand. This is especially true in case one of the options takes an argument as in this case. > [!]: SourceX is a working URL. > ---> please append '#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz' to Source0, to get > a properly named source-tarball Is this a serious complaint? The name of the upstream tarball is important for identifying the upstream sources. Arbitrarily renaming it looses the pedigree of the file, and gives rise to questions about why is the tarball named differently from upstream's name in the source RPM? Has it been modified in some way? I disagree with this suggestion. New version that fixes the EPEL 5 build: Spec URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/udt.spec SRPM URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/udt-4.11-2.fc20.src.rpm -- 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