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=767556
--- Comment #2 from Jindrich Novy jnovy@redhat.com 2011-12-14 09:18:36 EST --- (In reply to comment #1)
rpmlint scl-utils-20111209-1.fc16.src.rpm scl-utils.src:11: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 11, tab: line
Fixed.
rpmlint ../rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/scl-utils-* scl-utils.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided stack
The stack obsolete was removed.
scl-utils.x86_64: W: no-documentation scl-utils.x86_64: E: dir-or-file-in-opt /opt/rh scl-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scl scl-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scl_enabled scl-utils-build.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided stack-build scl-utils-build.x86_64: W: no-documentation scl-utils-build.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/rpm/macros.dsc scl-utils-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/scl-utils-20111209/scl.c
I suggest add the buildroot macro, because it might be needed in EPEL-5.
The package already contains: Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
Same problem with the clean section and defattr in the files section and "rm -rf" in the install section.
Obsoleted and not provided stack is probably ok, but it might be possible to remove stack at all, because it was never officially built. Please, fix fsf address. This would be one of many unfixable reviews ;-)
Given that I'm actually upstream there is not a problem to fix the address. It is done now :)
New packages:
Spec URL: http://jnovy.fedorapeople.org/scl-utils/scl-utils.spec SRPM URL: http://jnovy.fedorapeople.org/scl-utils/scl-utils-20111214-1.fc16.src.rpm