https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=905304 --- Comment #119 from Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- The dependencies on sendmail-milter and libbsd should not have been added as rpm detects them automatically. Check the requires for the built opendmarc package and you will see the following in addition to your manual libbsd and sendmail-milter dependencies: libbsd.so.0()(64bit) libbsd.so.0(LIBBSD_0.0)(64bit) ... libmilter.so.1.0()(64bit) The guidelines expressly prohibit manual library dependencies except under special circumstances, which would in any case require a versioned dependency: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires %defattr was last needed for EL-4 - you can get rid of it. You should also use %license rather than %doc for the license files. I suggest: %if 0%{?_licensedir:1} %license LICENSE LICENSE.Sendmail %else %doc LICENSE LICENSE.Sendmail %endif %doc README RELEASE_NOTES docs/draft-dmarc-base-13.txt instead of: %doc LICENSE LICENSE.Sendmail README RELEASE_NOTES docs/draft-dmarc-base-13.txt Your macro usage for %{name} is inconsistent. For example, you create user/group "%{name}" but explicitly use user/group "opendmarc" in the systemd service file. My personal preference is only to use %{name} where it's truly boilerplate such as in the buildroot tag, explicit dependencies for sub-packages etc., and use the explicit package name elsewhere. Whatever you choose, make sure your use is consistent. A good rule of thumb would be that if you renamed the package, it would still build and run correctly. -- You are receiving this mail because: 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