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=225856 --- Comment #9 from Zdenek Prikryl <zprikryl@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-20 03:58:54 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > You're currently adding "Requires: bash >= 2.0" to gpm package. Is this really > needed? Bash < 2.0 existed before 1998 in Red Hat Linux - that was just before > Red Hat Linux 5.2. If we still need it, please explain the need for it. It seems that this requires isn't needed any more. > Do we really need the static library? If yes, we need a -static subpackage. But > personally, I don't see a need for a *.a file - can we remove it? We need the static library. So, I added -static subpackage. > I think, we can ignore macro-in-%changelog warnings, there's nothing which gets > expanded here. I changed % to %% so this warnings disappear. > Do we really need to package the TODO file as %doc? That seems to be needed for > upstream, not for downstream, yes? If we need it, we have to convert it to UTF8 > using e.g. the following: > > iconv -f iso-8859-1 -t utf-8 -o TODO.utf8 TODO > touch -c -r TODO TODO.utf8 > mv -f TODO.utf8 TODO > I my opinion this file is needed. If anyone wants to start writing patches, then he'll look into this file and start writing. So, I added the conversion to the spec file. > We can't fix W: strange-permission gpm.init 0755 as CVS won't let us do this, > AFAIK. Please have a look in the future, that you're importing/adding files > with the correct permissions, please (0644) - thanks. Ok. > BTW, somebody an idea, what causes W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/ > libgpm.so.2.1.0 and how to solve it? I'll take a look on this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review