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: gnucap - The Gnu Circuit Analysis Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189699 ------- Additional Comments From wart@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-04-27 12:53 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > > W: gnucap-debuginfo dangling-relative-symlink > > /usr/src/debug/gnucap-0.34/src/O/d_mos123.cc ../d_mos123.cc > > > > - The build system compiles against symlinks to the actual source files, > which > > seems to confuse rpmbuild when it creates the debuginfo package. You might > > > try using hardlinks instead of softlinks to work around this. > > > > I noticed this too, this also came up during a review by me of kismet which > generates the same warnings. We (I and the kismet packager) concider this an > rpmbuild bug and have bugzilla'd it, see: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189928 I agree that it's a bug in rpmbuild, but you still end up producing an almost uselss debuginfo package. I found a simple workaround. Add the following two lines to %prep to use hardlinks instead of softlinks: %{__sed} -i 's!ln -s!ln!g' src/Make1 %{__sed} -i 's!ln -s!ln!g' src/Make.aux > > QUESTIONS > > ========= > > * There seems to be two home pages for gnucap. The one listed in the > > spec file at www.gnu.org lists 0.31 as the most recent version. But > > a similarly looking page at http://www.geda.seul.org/tools/gnucap > > shows 0.34. Why the two home pages? > > > > I noticed this too, it seems that gnucap @ gnu is dead, and that the geda > project has taken it over. In that case the URL tag should point to the Geda project page, since the gnu project page hasn't been updated since version 0.31, almost 4 years ago. Add a comment with a pointer to the gnu.org page if you feel it's necessary. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review