https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187030 --- Comment #13 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> --- > I am unpleasantly surprised Stay calm. It's very hard to please everyone. 1) Also some spec files in the Fedora package collection predate some of the changes in the packaging guidelines. Since no post-approval re-reviews are done for packages in the collection, this means that old or wrong things may remain in spec files for a very long time. 2) Some packagers insist on keeping a single spec file for multiple dist targets, such as EPEL 5 where it is still necessary to set up Buildroot and clean it, too. EL 5, however, also requires a %clean section, which is not in your spec file. 3) Some spec file template setup tools, such as rpmdev-newspec, still generate a spec file which cleans up the Buildroot at beginning of %install, because if it didn't, other people would complain about that. rpmdev-newspec doesn't output a %clean section, which is puzzling. But it tries to cover installations where e redhat-rpm-config is not installed: https://fedorahosted.org/rpmdevtools/ticket/25 And finally: 4) It's no major packaging mistake, no big issue. Really. It's just in the guidelines and worth knowing. Reviewers, who miss such things, sometimes get attacked/criticized. > eclipse-fedorapackager plugin Well, that sounds as if some of its output doesn't adhere to the packaging guidelines then. ;-p -- 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