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=457210 Rakesh Pandit <rakesh.pandit@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rakesh.pandit@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #5 from Rakesh Pandit <rakesh.pandit@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-08-16 09:24:24 EDT --- GPLv2+ looks to me correct license. [rpmbuild@rocky i386]$ rp dpkg-1.14.20-4.fc9.i386.rpm dpkg.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. [rpmbuild@rocky i386]$ rp dpkg-dev-1.14.20-4.fc9.i386.rpm dpkg-dev.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. [rpmbuild@rocky i386]$ rp dselect-1.14.20-4.fc9.i386.rpm dselect.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. package does not own some directories 1. /etc/dpkg/ 2. /usr/lib/dpkg/ 3. /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.10.0/Dpkg/ 4. /usr/share/dpkg/ It looks like SPEC file length can be reduced by using regular exp or some constructs which prevent similar patterns. -- 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