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=431250 --- Comment #31 from Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx> 2008-10-04 12:56:25 EDT --- * rpmlint output ignorable: librep-devel.i386: W: no-documentation librep-devel.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib emacs-librep-el.i386: W: no-documentation X free software, but license should be included * follow guidelines * match upstream (checked manually) * usual .so unuseful provides X directory %{_libdir}/rep/%{version}/ unowned. # rpm -qf /usr/lib/rep/0.17.2/ file /usr/lib/rep/0.17.2 is not owned by any package I would suggest putting AUTHORS MAINTAINERS in %doc. And maybe doc/*. 2 issues marked with X to be fixed before approval. And also before approval there are multilib issues remaining: In librep.pc there is no Libs: entry??? The file /usr/bin/rep-config will conflict in multilib settings, on fedora it would be better to patch it such that it is a wrapper around pkgconfig, and you can submit to upstream the resulting rep-config script such that they also ship it, and packagers can choose what to install. -- 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