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=469955 --- Comment #6 from Bastien Nocera <bnocera@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-25 11:36:42 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > Here is what rpmlint says on the rpms: > > fprintd.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/fprintd.conf > > You said you wanted to make this conf ? No, I added a comment about it: # This file should be marked as config when it does something useful > fprintd.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc > /etc/dbus-1/system.d/net.reactivated.Fprint.conf > > This is ignorable > > fprintd-devel.i386: W: summary-not-capitalized fprintd development > documentation > > I always use a more-or-less standardized summary of "Development files for > %{name}" for -devel packages. OK, will change. > fprintd-devel.i386: W: invalid-license GFDLv1.1+ > > No + there, I think. But the docs say: "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or any later version [...]" > printd-pam.i386: W: no-documentation > > Thats sad, but ignorable. I'll write a little something to go upstream and in the package. (In reply to comment #5) > Taking a first look at the spec file: > > Requires: %{name} = %{version} > > Not sure if theres a policy about this, but I always do > Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} > to avoid surprises Yes, will fix. -- 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