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=525005 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mathstuf@xxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-23 01:52:31 EDT --- Well, I can at least take a look. I'll need to go over both packages you've submitted; with luck I'll have some time tomorrow. I note your rpmlint output doesn't match mine: libmxp.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.2.2-1 ['0.2.2-2.fc12', '0.2.2-2'] The package is release 2 but your last changelog entry is for release 1. libmxp.x86_64: W: no-documentation This is OK. libmxp.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libmxp.so.0.0.3 /lib64/libm.so.6 libmxp is linked against libm but doesn't call any functions in it. This isn't really problematic because any running system is going to have libm in memory anyway. There's a solution at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues if you really care; just hack libtool to pass -Wl,--as-needed to the linker. More review stuff to follow. -- 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