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=468329 Christopher D. Stover <quantumburnz@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx, | |quantumburnz@xxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Christopher D. Stover <quantumburnz@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-24 22:44:47 EDT --- ***Unofficial Review*** * rpmlint looks good: 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. * Why is your build number 134? I believe it should start at 1. * You don't need gcc-c++ in your BuildRequires. * I'd run rpmdev-newspec to create a sample spec file and format yours like that. I think it helps to have everything standardized for when someone looks at it. For instance, you have the 'BuildRequires' tag coming after 'Name' and it should be 'Version'. * I'm sure you'll do this if you look at the sample spec file but you should use %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) as your BuildRoot. * Your spec file license shows IBM but the upstream license shows "Common Public License" so this should probably be changed from IBM to CPL. * You should use Source0: <link> to match the form of SourceX. * Requires -- you can leave out the following, RPM can figure them out. Requires: sblim-cmpi-devel glibc-devel * You should use %{__rm} under %install to be consistent within the spec file. * You must run %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install. That's about all I have. -- 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