https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135654 --- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> --- > %package doc > Summary: Documentation for %{name} > Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} > BuildArch: noarch It is not just inconvenient to hardcode such a dependency in a Documentation package, so the package cannot be installed without pulling in lots of dependencies. Please keep doc packages free of such deps unless the base app is strictly required to display the doc files. A "noarch" subpackage _cannot_ depend on %{?_isa}, because it may be built on any arch and is put into all repos for different archs. > Name: libpuma > # The generated config depends on a specific version of gcc/g++ > Requires: gcc-c++ = %{gccver} Here %{?_isa} would make sense. The generated .config file (_not_ in libpuma package btw) seems arch-specific, subpackage "-aspectc++" (which is not multi-lib) requires arch-specific libpuma, so libpuma ought to require the arch-specific compiler, too. > # Fix the FSF's address > for f in $(grep -FRl 'Temple Place' .); do > ... > touch -r $f.orig $f > ... Nasty trap. ;) Seeing this I wondered about the license file, and indeed you modify the license file which must not be done: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address -- 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