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=483696 --- Comment #3 from W. Michael Petullo <mike@xxxxxxxx> 2009-03-06 20:54:33 EDT --- New version: Spec URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/libdmapsharing.spec SRPM URL: http://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/libdmapsharing-1.9.0.3-1.fc10.src.rpm >> Requires: glib2, libsoup, avahi-glib > Should really be dropped in favour of the automatic SONAME dependencies. > However: You don't add the proper LDFLAGS to link with these libraries. > libdmapsharing-1.9.so.1.0.9 contains undefined symbols! > That's why you don't get rpmbuild's automatic SONAME deps. Fixed. >> %post >> /sbin/ldconfig >> >> %postun >> /sbin/ldconfig > Prefer > > %post -p /sbin/ldconfig > %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig > > to run this command directly instead of via /bin/sh. Fixed > * -devel pkg ought to "Requires: pkgconfig", because it stores a file in > %_libdir/pkgconfig/ and because libdmapsharing API users will likely evaluate > the pkg-config --cflags/--libs values for this library. Fixed. > * %doc file "INSTALL" is irrelevant to RPM package users Fixed. > * The installed pkg-config file contains a hardcoded /lib in libdir. This > breaks on 64-bit archs. Use @libdir@ in the .pc.in template file. Fixed. > * The major library version as part of the SONAME is intentional? > (libdmapsharing-1.9.so.1.0.9) Fixed. > * What "license issue" does the TODO file refer to? This issue is resolved. I have received permission directly from the rhythmbox/DAAP developers for a GPL to LGPL license change for their DAAP code. Previously, I had received second hand information from the old libdmapsharing maintainer. The AUTHORS file now documents this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review