Document link: https://docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_enterprise_linux/9/html-single/packaging_and_distributing_software/index#checking-the-pello-spec-file_checking-pello-for-common-errors

Section number and name: 4.7.2.1. Checking the pello spec file for common errors

Describe the issue:

The example output of the `rpmlint pello.spec` command given in the documentation:

$ rpmlint pello.spec
pello.spec:30: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib/%{name}
pello.spec:34: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/%{name}/%{name}.pyc
pello.spec:39: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib/%{name}/
pello.spec:43: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/%{name}/
pello.spec:45: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/%{name}/%{name}.py*
pello.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: https://www.example.com/pello/releases/pello-0.1.2.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 1 warnings.

is not reproducible using the spec file given in the 4.5.4. An example SPEC file for a program written in Python section, which produces the following output instead:

$ rpmlint pello.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

It seems that the output in the documentation is not based on the one that uses the sources from the https://github.com/fedora-python/Pello project.

Impact of this issue: Documentation consumers may be unnecessarily confused by the unexpected outcome.

Suggestions for improvement: Revert the change that uses the https://github.com/fedora-python/Pello project to allow reproducing rpmlint warnings and errors.