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=476398 --- Comment #21 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> 2009-03-19 16:09:36 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=335928) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=335928) spec patch for check section Great, one of the tests fails even. :) If upstream cannot reproduce it by running "spkg-check" manually, it would be Fedora-specific. > Except you don't require the main package if one doesn't exist. > It's not obvious. That's splitting-hairs. You could apply your weird theory to every package and move even applications into -devel packages. *This* package builds shared libraries, which are used at run-time. A -devel package, on the contrary, is fully optional. A run-time package must not depend on a -devel package. > That's a comma. It's there to separate two ideas. Doesn't matter, you moved the shared libs actually. That breaks the package badly already. It's a blocker during review. Shared libs in wrong path, no ldconfig scriptlets either. > They can be moved back if you like. It will be required for this package to pass review. > it's easy enough to adjust search path at build time for static libs. Why exactly do you move them to a non-standard location? -- 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