Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458220 --- Comment #1 from S.A. Hartsuiker <sahartsu@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-08-07 17:44:18 EDT --- RPM Lint: 1 error, see to the bottom of this comment Package name: php-pecl-json Spec file: php-pecl-json.spec License: PHP Actual License: PHP v3.01 %doc License: not included Spec file language: english Spec file readable: yes Upstream source vs. used tarball: md5sums match Compile and Build: - F-8: n/a - F-9: n/a - rawhide: n/a - EL-5: builds Applicable Package Guidelines: ok Locales: not aplicable Shared libs: ok Relocatable: no Directory and file ownership: ok No duplicate files in %files: ok File Permissions: ok Macro usage: not ok, see bottom Code vs. Content: ok (Large) Documentation: ok %doc affecting runtime: ok Header files in -devel package: n/a Static Libraries in -static package: n/a pkgconfig Requires: n/a Library files: ok Devel requires base package: n/a .la libtool archives: n/a Duplicate ownership of files/directories: ok Remove BuildRoot: ok UTF-8 filenames: ok rpmlint complains about: [shartsuiker@localhost json-1.2.1]$ rpmlint -i -v /var/lib/mock//epel-5-i386/result/php-pecl-json-1.2.1-1.el5.i386.rpm php-pecl-json.i386: I: checking php-pecl-json.i386: E: percent-in-dependency php-zend-abi %{php_zendabiver} This rpm has a dependency whose version part contains the '%' character. It could be an unexpanded macro, please double check. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. All I did was a mock build against epel-5-i386 on fedora9 . Looks like the dependencies are not working properly. Does this have to be build on a rhel5 box? -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review