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=464074 Jon Ciesla <limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla <limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-28 13:52:22 EDT --- rpmlint not clean for me: cddlib-debuginfo.i386: E: empty-debuginfo-package This debuginfo package contains no files. This is often a sign of binaries being unexpectedly stripped too early during the build, rpmbuild not being able to strip the binaries, the package actually being a noarch one but erratically packaged as arch dependent, or something else. Verify what the case is, and if there's no way to produce useful debuginfo out of it, disable creation of the debuginfo package. The file: examples-ml/Combinatorica5.m Cannot be included in Fedora cue to the following licensing clause: This package may be copied in its entirety for nonprofit purposes only. Sale, other than for the direct cost of the media, is prohibited. This copyright notice must accompany all copies. Paulo, grep -i license * and */* and */*/* . . .etc will help you find this sort of thing. Why -devel and not -static, as there are no solibs? I'm ok with the docs/examples being bundled, they're not that big, left to packager discretion IMHO. Otherwise, a good review. Checking mock BRs, will be slightly delayed there due to system issues. :( -- 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