http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1321
--- Comment #7 from Hans de Goede <[email protected]> 2010-07-16 11:38:19 --- Good: - rpmlint checks return: libva-freeworld.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion libva < 0.31.0.1.sds130 obsoletes libva = 1:0.31.0-1.sds13.fc13 libva-freeworld.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vainfo libva-freeworld-devel.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion libva-devel < 0.31.0.1.sds130 obsoletes libva-devel = 1:0.31.0-1.sds13.fc13 libva-freeworld-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libva-freeworld-utils.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion libva-utils < 0.31.0.1.sds130 obsoletes libva-utils = 1:0.31.0-1.sds13.fc13 libva-freeworld-utils.x86_64: W: no-documentation libva-freeworld-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libva_h264encode libva-freeworld-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libva_test_10 libva-freeworld-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mpeg2vldemo libva-freeworld-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libva_test_11 libva-freeworld-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary putsurface libva-freeworld-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libva_test_05 libva-freeworld-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libva_test_04 libva-freeworld-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libva_test_07 libva-freeworld-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libva_test_06 libva-freeworld-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libva_test_01 libva-freeworld-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libva_test_03 libva-freeworld-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libva_test_02 libva-freeworld-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libva_test_09 libva-freeworld-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libva_test_08 libva-freeworld.src:58: W: macro-in-comment %{_includedir} libva-freeworld.src:23: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 23, tab: line 1) - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (MIT) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files - post/postun ldconfig ok - devel requires base package n-v-r Needs work: - Hmm, I had not thought about the need for an epoch in the virtual provides / obsoletes. I can understand that you want to keep a clean upgrade path from 3th party repositories already carying this. In that case I would prefer to stick with the previous versioning scheme until a new upstream release is made (sorry about this). - rpmlint: libva-freeworld.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion libva < 0.31.0.1.sds130 obsoletes libva = 1:0.31.0-1.sds13.fc13 libva-freeworld-devel.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion libva-devel < 0.31.0.1.sds130 obsoletes libva-devel = 1:0.31.0-1.sds13.fc13 libva-freeworld-utils.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion libva-utils < 0.31.0.1.sds130 obsoletes libva-utils = 1:0.31.0-1.sds13.fc13 I guess rpmlint wants to see an explicit epoch 0 in the obsoletes, but this does not matter if we switch back to the old versioning screen. -rpmlint: libva-freeworld.src:23: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 23, tab: line 1) -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
