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=466183 --- Comment #23 from Praveen K Paladugu <praveen_paladugu@xxxxxxxx> 2009-09-14 18:43:54 EDT --- Final Review: 1) The build doesn't use the standard build flags defined by rpm for this platform. So instead of using "CFLAGS = -D_GNU_SOURCE" with "configure", CFLAGS = "$CFLAGS -D_GNU_SOURCE" should be used. (current line :44) - %configure --enable-debug --enable-ssl --enable-pam --enable-ipv6 CFLAGS= -D_GNU_SOURCE + %configure --enable-debug --enable-ssl --enable-pam --enable-ipv6 CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -D_GNU_SOURCE" 2) The base package (sblim-sfcb-1.3.4-6.fc10.i386.rpm) doesn't contain any libraries in it. To fix this, (current line: 69) - #echo "%{_libdir}/sfcb/*.so*" >> _pkg_list + echo "%{_libdir}/sfcb/*.so.*" >> _pkg_list This will add *.so.0, *.so.0.0 files into the package. 3) The devel package should only have the *.so files. So, (current lines 100,101) - %{_libdir}/sfcb/*.so* - %{_libdir}/sfcb/*.la + %{_libdir}/sfcb/*.so The static libraries should not be part of either the base or the devel package. 4) The tar present in the source RPM doesn't match the original sources. This is a requirement with Fedora Packaging. If any changes have to be made, they have to be added as patches. 5) The package builds fine on mock currently, will check again once the above changes are implemented. Thank you Praveen -- 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