https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1541554 --- Comment #2 from Frantisek Kluknavsky <fkluknav@xxxxxxxxxx> --- "MUST:rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review." $ rpmlint ./podman-* podman.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpod -> lib pod, lib-pod, libido podman.src: E: description-line-too-long C libpod provides a library for applications looking to use the Container Pod concept popularized by Kubernetes. podman.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpod -> lib pod, lib-pod, libido podman.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C libpod provides a library for applications looking to use the Container Pod concept popularized by Kubernetes. podman.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib podman.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/podman-run.1.gz 846: warning: macro `You' not defined podman-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings. Spelling error is obviously a false positive. only-non-binary-in-usr-lib is a known bug. Too long description should be fixed. I created a pull request. I am not aware if every subpackage must have some documentation, it does not make much sense here. Manual page is readable, the warning should probably be investigated anyway. "If a Fedora package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation with the bug number." The custom definition of %gobuild macro seems a buggy remnant of developing the spec, but in Fedora the spec does not use this definition, it should not be a problem. Overall, I can not find any serious blockers. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
