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 #1 from Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano@redhat.com 2011-12-14 07:21:17 EST --- rpmlint scl-utils-20111209-1.fc16.src.rpm scl-utils.src:11: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 11, tab: line 1)

rpmlint ../rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/scl-utils-* scl-utils.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided stack 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. 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 ;-)

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

Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+

--- Comment #3 from Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano@redhat.com 2011-12-14 09:56:00 EST --- - rpmlint OK - package must be named according to Guidelines OK - spec file name must match the base package %{name} OK - package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK - package must be licensed with Fedora approved license OK - license field GPLv2+ must match actual license OK - text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc OK - sources must match the upstream source OK - package MUST successfully compile and build OK http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3584414 - architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla OK - build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires OK - handle locales properly with %find_lang macro OK - shared library files must call ldconfig in %post(un) OK - packages must NOT bundle system libraries OK - package must own all directories that it creates OK - permissions on files must be set properly OK - package must consistently use macros OK - package must contain code, or permissable content OK - large documentation must go in a -doc OK - %doc must not affect the runtime of the application OK - header files must be in a -devel package OK - static libraries must be in a -static package OK - library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel OK - devel package usually require base package OK - packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives OK - GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK - packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK

APPROVED

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 #5 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2011-12-14 13:39:53 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests).