Spec Name or Url: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/lightning/lightning.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/lightning/lightning-1.2-1.spec Description: GNU lightning is a library to aid in making portable programms that compiles assembly code at run time.
Will not build: Arch not included. You probably want %{ix86} macro for ExclusiveArch. Which does make sense for so much assembly. And when it does compile, it fails with error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/share/info/dir This is probably due to the make install step putting an entry in the top node, but we want that done in %post and deleted in %postun http://www.gnu.org/software/lightning/lightning.html is a more relevant URL. Small typo in %description: programms -> programs
I could reproduced your complaint about %{_infodir}/dir. The other complaints should be fixed. You can download the correct version from: Spec Name or Url: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/lightning/lightning.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/lightning/lightning-1.2-2.spec
(In reply to comment #2) > I could reproduced your complaint about %{_infodir}/dir. The usual fix is to do: rm -f %{buildroot}%{_infodir}/dir at the end of %install This will remove it if it gets installed, and will be harmless otherwise.
Event I could not reproduced your issue, I have added your suggestion. the current version could you download from: Spec Name or Url: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/lightning/lightning.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.herr-schmitt.de/pub/lightning/lightning-1.2-3.spec
error: Architecture is not included: x86_64 Does lightning support x86_64?
Unfortunately NO.
rpmlint of lightning-1.2-3.i386.rpm:E: lightning no-binary W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/ppc/fp.h W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/ppc/funcs.h W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/core.h W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/ppc/core.h W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/sparc/funcs.h W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/fp.h W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/sparc/asm.h W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/ppc/asm.h W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/i386/funcs.hW: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/fp-common.h W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/i386/fp.h W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/i386/core.h W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/asm.h W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/i386/asm.h W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/asm-common.hW: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/core-common.h W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/funcs.h W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/sparc/core.hW: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/funcs-common.h W: lightning devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/lightning/sparc/fp.h These are all rather necessary for lightningize to lightningize something. (Which it seemed to do successfully) - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license is either GPL or LGPL both included and OK - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on FC5 (i386) - 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 This is something to add to the exclude x86_64 tracker. APPROVED
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: lightning Updated Fedora Ownders: Jochen,lxtnow
I'm not sure why this ticket is still open, but I'll set the review flag so that it doesn't show up in the "to be reviewed list".