Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnue-common - GNU Enterprise Common Base https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439310 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-03-31 06:12 EST ------- Aaron, please increment the release tag each time you modify the spec file and submit a new rpm for review. In fedora>=9, a .egg-info is created and it must also be included in the binary rpm. Your %files section misses that and this leads to error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/gnue_common-0.6.9-py2.5.egg-info which is easy fixable. The "Require python>2.3" is not an error, but even Fedora 7 provides python 2.5. Taking into account that rpmbuild adds automatically "python-abi = <version>" as a requires, I suggest to completely drop this condition. Some of the files included as doc are marked as executable and therefore they bring in some rpmlint warnings and unneeded deps: gnue-common.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gnue-common-0.6.9/pdftable-example.py gnue-common.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/gnue-common-0.6.9/pdftable-example.py /usr/bin/env rpmlint also gives this warnings: gnue-common.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnue/sample.connections.conf gnue-common.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gnue/sample.gnue.conf Please examine if these files need or not this flag. And last but not least, could you please instruct me how can I test that the application works ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review