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=529496 --- Comment #34 from Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-13 06:49:51 EST --- (In reply to comment #29) > (In reply to comment #28) > > MUSTFIX: > > > > * Package doesn't build in mock: Package still does not build: RPM build errors: error: File not found by glob: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libmtag-0.3.4-1.fc13.x86_64/usr/lib64/*.so.* File not found by glob: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libmtag-0.3.4-1.fc13.x86_64/usr/lib64/*.so.* Child returncode was: 1 Apparently you don't test the stuff you want us to review. > > * Spec-filename ("libmtag-1.spec") doesn't comply to Fedora conventions. > > libmtag.spec, right? If so, fixed. Yes. > > * Building is non-verbose (cf. above). > > Fixed. No - Either you broke things even more or you demonstrated why "non-verbose makefiles are harmful": g++ -ggdb -Wall -Wextra -Wno-unused-parameter -I/usr/include/taglib -I./lib -fPIC -MMD -o lib/mtag.o -c lib/mtag.cpp gcc -ggdb -Wall -Wextra -Wno-unused-parameter -I./lib -MMD -o src/mtag.o -c src/mtag.c gcc -ggdb -Wall -Wextra -Wno-unused-parameter -I./lib -MMD -o tests/reader.o -c tests/reader.c => NEW: MUSTFIX: Package doesn't honor RPM_OPT_FLAGS > > From what I see, you abandoned using automake and switched to using manually > > written Makefiles. Likely you believe this to be a good idea ... I don't. > > Well, that's your opinion, you are entitled to it. Well, you are not the first person who is outsmarting himself by using handwritten makefiles. This review and your behavior as upstream speaks a very clear language. -- 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