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=472150 --- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-08 21:58:26 EDT --- This failed to build for me in rawhide; it looks like it will need some fixes in order to build with gcc 4.4: coot-utils.cc: In function 'std::string coot::util::int_to_string(int)': coot-utils.cc:307: error: 'snprintf' was not declared in this scope coot-utils.cc: In function 'std::string coot::util::long_int_to_string(long int)': coot-utils.cc:314: error: 'snprintf' was not declared in this scope coot-utils.cc: In function 'std::string coot::util::float_to_string(float)': coot-utils.cc:321: error: 'snprintf' was not declared in this scope coot-utils.cc: In function 'std::string coot::util::float_to_string_using_dec_pl(float, short unsigned int)': coot-utils.cc:332: error: 'snprintf' was not declared in this scope make[1]: *** [coot-utils.lo] Error 1 About the rpmlint complaints, the unused-direct-shlib-dependency ones just indicate that a library is linked against libm but doesn't actually call any functions in it. It's not really a problem. All of the undefined-non-weak symbol complaints come from the fact that one library calls functions in another without being linked against it. Things still work because the the final executables link against all of the libraries. It's really bad form, but unless the libraries are expected to be used by other packages it's not really a huge problem. It's something I would complain to upstream about and perhaps try to work out a fix (after all, it is a lot of rpmlint warnings and it shouldn't be all that hard to make them go away) but I don't think it would block this review. Also, you probably don't want to pass --vendor=fedora to desktop-file-install. -- 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