https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110386 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher@xxxxxxxxx> --- Good: - rpmlint checks return: codec2.spec:91: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate. codec2.spec:91: W: macro-in-comment %{name} There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate. codec2.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: codec2-0.3.svn1914.tar.xz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. codec2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Codec -> Codex, Code, Codes The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. codec2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. codec2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. codec2-devel-examples.noarch: E: devel-dependency codec2-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. codec2-devel-examples.noarch: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. odec2.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.3-2.svn1771 ['0.3-3.20141108svn1914.fc21', '0.3-3.20141108svn1914'] The latest entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package. codec2.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/codec2/AUTHORS codec2.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/codec2/ChangeLog codec2.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/codec2/NEWS codec2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. codec2-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary c2demo Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. codec2-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fec_dec Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. codec2-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary c2sim Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. codec2-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary insert_errors Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. codec2-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary c2dec Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. codec2-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fdmdv_mod Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. codec2-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary c2enc Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. codec2-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fdmdv_put_test_bits Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. codec2-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fdmdv_interleave Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. codec2-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fec_enc Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. codec2-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fdmdv_get_test_bits Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. codec2-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fdmdv_demod Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. codec2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share. Fix the macros, spelling errors are fine, URL error is OK, man pages are a nice-to-have, drop the zero-length docs. I'm not sure why it's complaining about the pkgconfig file in lib. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines ! license, spec says LGPLv2+, src/codec2.c says LGPLv2 - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files - post/postun ldconfig ok - devel requires base package n-v-r All in all looks good, just the license verification and rpmlint bits. -- 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