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=225659 --- Comment #6 from Nalin Dahyabhai <nalin@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-19 13:42:34 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > cracklib-dicts.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > This is true, but I don't really see a problem in what you're doing. Does > anything absolutely require those symlinks to be there? If it didn't, you > could conceivably make this subpackage noarch (once the buildsys support for > that is finished). The FascistCheck() function in the library takes an absolute path to the dictionaries to check, so there's an unknown number of packages out there that hard-code locations under /usr/lib /usr/lib64 (though, come to think of it, there could be some mistakenly referencing /usr/lib on 64-bit systems... ugh). > It also complains about a couple of things which could do with fixing: > > cracklib-dicts.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot The standard CrackLib > dictionaries. > Terribly minor, but perhaps worth fixing if you're in the spec. Agreed, fixed. > cracklib.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/sbin/cracklib-unpacker > ['/usr/lib64'] > cracklib.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/sbin/cracklib-packer > ['/usr/lib64'] > cracklib.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/sbin/cracklib-check > ['/usr/lib64'] > cracklib-python.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath > /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/_cracklibmodule.so ['/usr/lib64'] > I don't know why these didn't turn up earlier. Maybe libtool2 actually makes > things worse? In any case, the recommended hack of tweaking libtool didn't > help, so I guess a call to chrpath is needed. Weird indeed. A local rebuild seems to keep cracklib-packer from being afflicted again, so I'm going to check in the summary change and throw it at the build system. ... Hmm, looks good from here. -- 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