https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1340946 --- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Name: ok Version & release: ok Summary: ok License: ok (GPLv2+) URL: ok Sources: ok (SHA256 9df3392f0bd746778f119a4da98a32e8ae9ae215564df97d7bcf52efa4d08604) BuildRequires: not ok BuildRequires: qt5-qtbase-tds BuildRequires: qt5-qtbase-odbc BuildRequires: qt5-qtbase-ibase BuildRequires: qt5-qtbase-mysql BuildRequires: qt5-qtbase-postgresql are not BuildRequires and are not needed to build the package Description: ok Files: ok Scratch build: builds ok, http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14326164 rpmlint output: rpmlint photoqt-1.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm photoqt.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog photoqt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary photoqt 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Please add version to changelog, it's easier to understand what changes happend in which version photoqt.spec photoqt.spec:2: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 2) 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. I'm not sure I like appdata included in SPEC file, not a big deal but it makes SPEC file less clear. Personally I prefer to use desktop-file-install but guidelines are ok with one of install/validate called, so ok. {buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT are mixed in SPEC file, please choose one for consistency or just remove rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT from %install section (not needed). For %build and %install sections I'd prefer to use this snippet (out of source tree build): %build mkdir %{_target_platform} pushd %{_target_platform} %{cmake} .. popd make %{?_smp_mflags} -C %{_target_platform} %install make install/fast DESTDIR=%{buildroot} -C %{_target_platform} -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx