https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1211831 --- Comment #38 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> --- > Bumping %release for each update during review is an old item on this list: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FrequentlyMadeMistakes > warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/copyq/locale/copyq_af.qm If there's disagreement between package submitter and reviewer, often it's a good idea to look up what the packaging guidelines say: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplicate_Files | A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec | file's %files listings. If you think your package is a valid exception | to this, please bring it to the attention of the Packaging Committee | so they can improve on this Guideline. So, in this particular case you would have the %files list from %find_lang and the tree of files as added by %_datadir/%name. The former with %lang(…) attributes, the latter without. One can only hope that rpmbuild doesn't take either one, but prefers the entries with %lang attribute. There is _nothing wrong_ with a longer explicit %files section, which only includes what %find_lang doesn't (not limited to the /usr/share/copyq/locale directory). If Gerald prefers %dir %{_datadir}/%{name} %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/locale %{_datadir}/%{name}/themes/ nothing wrong with that. I don't understand why it's felt as important to request including only %_datadir/%name just to save two lines (or a few more in the future). Btw, the packager could even append to %name.lang in %install and shorten the visible %files section further. ;-) The spec file would not get more readable, though. -- 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