https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1192059 --- Comment #8 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra DIaz from comment #7) You forgot to update the .spec file. The one in srpm is correct, so I'm using that. > Why and where Group tags should be removed? Everywhere :) They are harmeless, but not really used for anything. > I don't understand how use %{?_isa} in requires This only makes sense when an arch-full package depends on another arch-full package built from the same srpm. For example, %{name}-devel depends %{name}. The dependency without %{_isa} can be satisfied by a package from different architecture: %{name}-%{version}.i686 + %{name}-devel-%{version}.x86_64 But this is actually broken, since -devel needs the main package from the same architecture. To forbid that, you can use: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Some more issues: - Summary is better, but it should be less than 70 chars :) - part of %build (everything except %configure and make) should be moved to %prep. - %make_install already has DESTDIR, so no need to set it - find %{buildroot} -name \*.*a -delete looks wrong. This will delete any file which has a dot and ends in an 'a'. - %defattr is not needed (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions) - Should -doc be an archful package? Probably not, consider adding BuildArch: noarch (in the part for -doc). - Why doc -doc require the main package? I don't think there's a dependency. -- 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