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=464190 --- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant <wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-09-26 13:24:30 EDT --- 1. URL is not correct. I assume you meant https://fedorahosted.org/expendable instead 2. Is there a specific reason for using 0.1 as release tag ? It's not incorrect, but usually we use natural numbers 3. Could you please add a note to the URL, mentioning that the real source tarball is at https://fedorahosted.org/expendable/attachment/wiki/ProjectReleases/expendable-0.0.2.tar.bz2?format=raw ? When using the provided %Source0, the automated tools download a short html and bail out in pain. 4. rpmlint has a couple of complaints, which should be fixed: Launching rpmlint Source RPM: expendable.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Home finances modeling program. expendable.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog expendable.src: W: strange-permission expendable.spec 0600 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. rpmlint of expendable: expendable.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/expendable-0.0.2/ChangeLog expendable.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/expendable-0.0.2/NEWS expendable.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot Home finances modeling program. expendable.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 5. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=845586&name=build.log shows some oddities (/usr/lib/rpm/pythondeps.sh: line 8: python: command not found ) which I also see in a local mock build. Are those normal ? 6. We still require to have fedora as vendor in the desktop file. Your call to desktop-file-install does not set it. -- 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