https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350143 Dave Johansen <davejohansen@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(davejohansen@gmai | |l.com) | --- Comment #4 from Dave Johansen <davejohansen@xxxxxxxxx> --- Sorry for the delay. We moved and I haven't had time to work on this sort of thing. (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #2) > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/share/cmake/fmt, /usr/include/fmt > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/cmake, > /usr/share/cmake/fmt, /usr/include/fmt Fixed. > [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and > Provides are present. This is actually a rename of cppformat but I believe that these are correct. > Generic: > [!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. > Note: Package contains font files This came up during the original review of cppformat and the general consensus was that it wasn't an issue: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/EKVX5GCQUFINUYBRGFD2JQHF2UXUBBVV/ > [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > justified. Fixed. > fmt.x86_64: W: tag-in-description C Provides: > fmt.x86_64: W: tag-in-description C Obsoletes: Is there something wrong with my Provides/Obsoletes? > fmt.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.0.0-1 ['3.0.0-0.1.fc25', > '3.0.0-0.1'] Fixed. > fmt-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib I don't understand what this is warning about. The updated .spec file with the fixes is at: https://daveisfera.fedorapeople.org/fmt_3.0.0/fmt.spec -- 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