https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1233984 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Gerald Cox from comment #1) > I do have a question regarding use of {?_isa} in the Requires, mainly for my > own understanding going forward. Short story: I copied another, arch-specific, spec file I had just worked on to start, and just forgot to remove the %{?_isa} tags. You are correct: this is a noarch package and %{?_isa} is not useful. Removed. > - RPMLINT is complaining about zero length files: > E: zero-length /usr/lib/gap/pkg/AutoDoc/doc/AutomaticDocumentation.bbl > E: zero-length /usr/lib/gap/pkg/AutoDoc/doc/AutoDoc.bbl > These should be removed if not needed for something. > You can do this in %install section: > ====> find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -size "0" -exec rm -f {} ';' Done. > - The spell checker is complaining about "addon", > and in this case it is correct. It should be > add-on; however, if you change it, it probably will > report that as a misspelling. <sigh> Fixed. > - gap-pkg-autodoc.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > I found this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483199 > and from what I can gather this shouldn't have been generated because > you have noarch specified. Thoughts? This is an artifact of how gap itself is packaged, I suspect. Anyway, there's nothing I can do about it in this package. The files need to go where they go. > - Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. > It is suggested you advise upstream. This is common practice in the GAP world. GAP package authors tend to not put any notices in their source files, but to note the license for the entire project in the documentation. (In this case, doc/AutoDoc.tex and doc/AutomaticDocumentation.tex both identify the license.) > - %check is present and all tests pass. While many GAP packages come with test code, this one, sadly, does not. I'm not sure what to do about that. By the way, when you take a review, you should mark the bug status as Assigned. See step 3 of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer. New URLs: Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-autodoc/gap-pkg-autodoc.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-autodoc/gap-pkg-autodoc-2015.04.29-2.fc23.src.rpm -- 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