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=474768 --- Comment #6 from Patrick C. F. Ernzer <pcfe@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-16 08:52:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) [...] > I still see "Summary: A enhanced backup plugin for J-Pilot" ;-) doh! my bad, misread originally. Fixed now. > Removing definitely is better. Static subpackages are hightly discouraged in > Fedora; see packaging guidelines for details. OK, removed the provisions to make static package from spec file completely to keep is clean. > > License: GPLv2 > Looks more like GPLv2+ to me (or did I miss something?). No, you are right, I had missed the 'or later' in my first and second look. Fixed now. > > Requires: gdbm > Why is that needed? RPM automatically adds a requires for "libgdbm.so.2()", > hence please remove it if there there are no good reason for it. Thanks, you're of course right, removed. > >$ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/jpilot-backup-* jpilot-backup-0.53-4.fc10.src.rpm > >jpilot-backup.src: W: strange-permission jpilot-backup.spec 0600 > >3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > > Please fix Fixed. $ rpmlint jpilot-backup.spec /var/lib/mock//fedora-10-x86_64/result/*rpm jpilot-backup.spec:33: W: configure-without-libdir-spec jpilot-backup.src:33: W: configure-without-libdir-spec 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. I let it nag as '%configure --disable-static' did not help in making no .la, so there is little point in leaving a useless flag in. -- 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