[Bug 226004] Merge Review: libfontenc

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Sep 7 06:20:17 UTC 2010


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=226004

Parag AN(पराग) <panemade at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |panemade at gmail.com

--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade at gmail.com> 2010-09-07 02:20:16 EDT ---
rpmlint gave

libfontenc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime -> run time, run-time,
runtish
libfontenc.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C libfontenc
libfontenc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time,
run-time, runtish
libfontenc.src:30: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86-devel
libfontenc.src:30: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xorg-x11-devel
libfontenc.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
ftp://ftp.x.org/pub/individual/lib/libfontenc-1.0.5.tar.bz2 <urlopen error ftp
error: timed out>
libfontenc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime -> run time,
run-time, runtish
libfontenc.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C libfontenc
libfontenc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time,
run-time, runtish
libfontenc.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/libfontenc-1.0.5/AUTHORS
libfontenc-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided XFree86-devel
libfontenc-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11-devel
libfontenc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation


Suggestions:
1)As this review is currently for F15, following should be implemented in spec
 a) buildroot should be removed
 b) %clean not needed
 c) cleaning of buildroot at start of %install also not needed

2) AUTHORS file should be removed as its zero-length.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.


More information about the package-review mailing list