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=552113 --- Comment #5 from Rich Mattes <richmattes@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-12 11:15:00 EST --- I was just making sure that I was looking at the right files. The licensing thing also makes sense. Some comments on the spec: - According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Debuginfo, shared libs and binaries should be exectuable. the .so and two programs should be installed with permission 755, and the header file can stay 644. This clears up the debuginfo warning and the unstripped binary warnings. - %post -p and %postun -p do clear up the rpmlint warning - dos2unix fixes the line encoding. The solution at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ParagNemade/CommonRpmlintErrors#wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding is to not include files like that at all in the source tarballs, i don't know how feasible that is. - The no documentation messages should be OK, you have some documentation in the base package. - The no-soname error means that the library is being built without a soname. One way to get around this is to add an option to the LDFLAGS in src/Makefile. You can add -Wl,-soname,libwiiuse.so to give the library the soname of "libwiiuse.so". Verify by using "objdump -p libwiiuse.so |grep SONAME" Other comments: - Standard build systems like autotools and cmake play nicer with rpms, but with some patching this one could be made to work w.r.t. install paths, soname generation, etc. - It would be nice if there was a .pc file included as it's a development library. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review