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=506720 Miloslav Trmač <mitr@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(varekova@xxxxxxxx | |om) --- Comment #8 from Miloslav Trmač <mitr@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-06-24 15:47:22 EDT --- > $ rpmlint ../SRPMS/uClibc-0.9.30.1-1.fc11.src.rpm > uClibc.src:69: E: hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/lib/* > uClibc.src:70: E: hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/lib/ OK, these don't appear in the binary package. > $ rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/uClibc-devel-0.9.30.1-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Blockers: - License: should AFAICS be "LGPLv2" (no "+") - "No debuginfo needed" is rather useless reason for disabling debuginfo. Perhaps "This package only contains a static library". - Use %global instead of %define Other requirements: - Use %{?_smp_mflags} in (make V=1) - All patches should have an upstream bug link or comment Notes: - You can use %files ... %{_includedir}/uClibc instead of %files ... %dir %{_includedir}/uClibc %{_includedir}/uClibc/* (and the same for _libdir) - Please consider setting PREFIX instead of DEVEL_PREFIX - CFLAGS do not use %{optflags}, it probably doesn't make sense in this case - The ExcludeArch: comment will have to be filed as a bug component creation in bugzilla - My POV is that uClibc is a package that can be correctly packaged and made available to users of Fedora. I probably wouldn't approve a review of any other Fedora package linking against uClibc - both anaconda and mkinitrd link against glibc, after all. -- 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