https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223990 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Beekhof <abeekhof@xxxxxxxxxx> --- New output: openssl101e.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic openssl101e.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.1e-4 ['1.0.1e-4.el5.centos', '1.0.1e-4.centos'] openssl101e.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/.libcrypto.so.10.hmac openssl101e.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/.libcrypto.so.1.0.1e.hmac openssl101e.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/.libssl.so.10.hmac openssl101e.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib64/.libssl.so.1.0.1e.hmac openssl101e.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/openssl101e-1.0.1e/INSTALL openssl101e-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic openssl101e-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib openssl101e-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation openssl101e-perl.x86_64: W: no-documentation openssl101e-perl.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary c_rehash101e openssl101e-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic -> cryptography, cryptographer, crystallographic openssl101e-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation openssl101e.spec:313: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 313) openssl101e.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: openssl-1.0.1e-hobbled.tar.xz 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 16 warnings. Some nit-picks: - rpmlint is wanting the %changelog version to be '1.0.1e-4.el5.centos' - drop /usr/share/doc/openssl101e-1.0.1e/INSTALL - is c_rehash101e necessary? is there any case where it should be used over c_rehash? perhaps drop it (which would take care of the no-manual-page-for-binary) warning. The other points: - spelling-error: these are not errors - invalid-url: as discussed, there are legal reasons to leave as-is - hidden-file-or-dir, only-non-binary-in-usr-lib: I don't think its appropriate to move these files around in a respin - no-documentation: I can not find anything in the guidelines that suggests every sub-package needs docs. I think we can ignore these as sufficient docs are included with the main package. With the above changes I would claim this package meets the requirements. -- 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