Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libupnp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176617 tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|gdk@xxxxxxxxxx |tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-01-19 17:45 EST ------- Good: - rpmlint checks return: E: libupnp invalid-soname /usr/lib/libupnp.so.1.2.1 libupnp.so E: libupnp invalid-soname /usr/lib/libthreadutil.so libthreadutil.so E: libupnp invalid-soname /usr/lib/libixml.so libixml.so W: libupnp devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libupnp.so The invalid soname issue is a symptom of bad code, but this isn't fatal. Safe to ignore all rpmlint errors and the warning. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (BSD) 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 - creates no directories - 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 APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
