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=501381
Jochen Schmitt jochen@herr-schmitt.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Jochen Schmitt jochen@herr-schmitt.de 2009-06-04 12:43:18 EDT --- Good: + Basename of the SPEC file matches with package name + Package name fullfill naming guidelines. + URL tag shows on proper project home page + Package contains valid license tag + License tag state GPLv2 as a valid OSS license + Package contains verbatin copy of the license text + Package contains proper Obsolete/Provides statement for renaming + Package contains no subpackages + Consistently usage of RPM macros + Proper definition of the BuildRoot + BuildRoot will be cleaned on beginning of %clean and %install + Could download upstream sources via spectool -g + Packaged sources matches with upstream (md5sum: bbf9b8e74b9746d65b1fd1871a665208) + Local build works fine + Rpmlint is silent for source package + Scratch build on koji works fine. * Files permissions are ok. + Java symlinks for jar files are created + All packaged files are owned by the package. + %doc stanza is small, so we don't need extra subpackage + Package contains proper %Changelog
Bad: - Rpmlint complaints on binary rpm: $ rpmlint -i 389-console-1.1.3-2.fc10.x86_64.rpm 389-console.x86_64: E: no-binary The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain any binaries. - Debuginfo package is empty
I want to suggest, that you should recreate this package as a noarch package.