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=500506 --- Comment #2 from Rich Megginson <rmeggins@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-18 15:57:21 EDT --- Updated Source URL: http://port389.org/sources/389-adminutil-1.1.8.tar.bz2 md5sum 389-adminutil-1.1.8.tar.bz2 e84240547e2f7b97d0576bcb85c06a57 389-adminutil-1.1.8.tar.bz2 sha1sum 389-adminutil-1.1.8.tar.bz2 17581245a0d95b3f7cda90c3ed83b7984afe9b2c 389-adminutil-1.1.8.tar.bz2 I would like to waive or otherwise accept the rpmlint results. This is the output I get from rpmlint - same results with both rpmlint 0.85 and 0.87 on Fedora 10 389-adminutil.i386: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libadmsslutil.so.1.1.8 exit@xxxxxxxxx 389-adminutil.i386: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libadminutil.so.1.1.8 exit@xxxxxxxxx This is ok - these are functions specifically for handling fatal errors on behalf of the calling application. 389-adminutil-devel.i386: W: no-documentation The devel package has no documentation - it's all in the base package rpmlint -v /var/lib/mock/fedora-10-i386/result/389-adminutil-1.1.8-2.fc10.src.rpm 389-adminutil.src: I: checking 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. I'm not sure where the other errors are coming from. I do know that libadminutil does not strictly need to link directly against ssl, nss, ssldap60, or ldif60 - but all applications that want to support SSL (which is all of them) will need to also link with libadmsslutil which does require the SSL libs. ldif60 is not strictly needed but it doesn't hurt to link with it. The ICU dependencies are required to link with ICU even though rpmlint says they are not needed. -- 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