https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811330
Patrick C. F. Ernzer <pcfe(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |needinfo?(than(a)redhat.com)
--- Comment #9 from Patrick C. F. Ernzer <pcfe(a)redhat.com> ---
Than,
thanks. Much appreciated. Seems rpmlint on my build box is way less strict than
it should be.
(In reply to comment #8)
rpmlint outputs:
[...]
pcsc-cyberjack.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) chipcard ->
chip card,
chip-card, chipboard
the next release of the spec file will use 'chip card'
[...]
pcsc-cyberjack.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
contactless ->
con tactless, con-tactless, contact less
after a dictionary lookup, I decided to use 'non-contact' for the next release
[...]
* i'm not sure if the descriptions are correct in en_US.
Patrick, could you
please check again?
You're right, they did need fixing.
pcsc-cyberjack.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/udev/rules.d/92-cyberjack.rules
* please add %config(noreplace)
done
pcsc-cyberjack.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/pcsc/drivers/libifd-cyberjack.bundle/Contents/Linux/libifd-
cyberjack.so
* it should be included in devel-package, or just remove it if there's no
devel package
This one I am not sure about, I _think_ the .so needs to remain in that
location (compare pcsc-lite-ccid). But it will need someone more competent in
PC/SC than me to confirm.
pcsc-cyberjack-cjflash.x86_64: W: no-documentation
pcsc-cyberjack-cjflash.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cjflash
* your package doesn't have man pages, please ask upstream to add man page
in the future, it's only should fix.
I've asked upstream via their web form.
there is a small section about cjflash in the README.* files of the main
package. As this sub-package depends on the main one, should I maybe add a
README.Fedora to the sub-package that points to the main's README?
pcsc-cyberjack-examples.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/pcsc-cyberjack-examples-3.99.5final.SP03/verifypin_ascii.c
pcsc-cyberjack-examples.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/pcsc-cyberjack-examples-3.99.5final.SP03/verifypin_fpin2.c
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings
* the Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
[...]
Also asked this from upstream.
Do I remember correctly that I am NOT to patch these two files until upstream
released an updated version or is it OK for me to patch the address in this
version and then revert my patch once upstream fixed it?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.