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=226192 --- Comment #8 from Jan Safranek <jsafrane@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-12 07:33:28 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) > net-snmp.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post mv > Agreed that this may be OK, but what was the last release that put data in > /var/net-snmp? If it was more than a few releases ago, there's no point in > keeping this bit at all. At the least, some indication of which releases > require it is in order. Fedora 11: /var/net-snmp, Fedora 12: /var/lib/net-snmp. I've added a note about it. > Similarly, "allow compilation on old Fedoras" can go if "old Fedoras" is older > than F10. At the very least, some statement of "how old" would be good to > have. Again, rpm on Fedora 11 does not define %python_sitearch, I've added a comment there. > net-snmp-libs.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol > /usr/lib64/libnetsnmpagent.so.20.0.0 netsnmp_register_null_context > Six of these in this library with different symbols. I suppose if you want to > use this library you also have to link against some other library which > provides those symbols. That's bad programming practice but not a review > blocker. This one is broken upstream, libnetsnmpagent.so does not link with libsnmphelpers.so, but needs its symbols. In fact, libsnmphelpers and libnetsnmpagent need symbols from each other :). I've filled a bug upstream and I'll look at it eventually. https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=112694&aid=2930536&group_id=12694 > net-snmp-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > /usr/lib64/libnetsnmpagent.so.20.0.0 /usr/lib64/libcrypto.so.10 > Many of these in various different libraries. All of these libraries are > linked against other libraries even though they call nothing in them. This > probably isn't an issue as most of these libraries will be in memory anyway, > although there are a couple of libperl.so references that don't need to be > there. > In general these are OK; they're bad if the force unnecessary dependencies or > pull in unused libraries that won't generally already be in memory, and you can > get rid of them with "-Wl,--as-needed" on the link line. Maybe that's what > "--enable-as-needed" on the configure line is for, but it doesn't seem to help. Strange, it looks like --enable-as-needed does absolutely nothing. I'll check it with upstream, this looks like a silly bug. > In any case I don't see anything which would block a review. Thanks a lot for the review! Would you kindly approve it? > One minor nit is that I don't see the point of the "Building option" bit in > %description. When you see that in the final package, it makes it seem that > use of tcp_wrappers is disabled when in fact it's enabled. Such a comment is > appropriate for the spec file but not really useful in the binary package. "Building option" removed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review