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=446841 --- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-12-07 10:38:38 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > You have Patch0: but call %patch instead of %patch0. rpm these days doesn't > permit that. Fixed. > You can probably drop the BuildRequires conditional for Fedora 8; new branches > for that release aren't accepted any longer so you only have to consider F-9 > and newer. Actually, I can't - I plan to submit this package for EPEL as well. > If I fix the %patch problem, the package builds and rpmlint says: > python-sippy.src:13: W: unversioned-explicit-provides sippy > You should essentially never use an unversioned Provides: like that, because > it > makes it impossible to bring back a package with that name. See > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Renaming.2Freplacing_existing_packages > for more information on how to rename packages. Fixed. http://peter.fedorapeople.org/python-sippy.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/python-sippy-0-3.20081202cvs.fc10.src.rpm Koji scratchbuild: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=985384 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review