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=226210 --- Comment #34 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-25 17:06:26 EST --- (In reply to comment #33) > (In reply to comment #31) > > rpmlints are usually blockers. If not, the packager should explain/defend why > > each rpmlint can be disregarded. In this case, the fix should be > > straightforward. > > This is the only outstanding issue on the bug. I've tried the fedora > recommended fixes for the unused-direct-shlib-dependency but it breaks the > build due to the esoteric build system of opal. Upstream have no interested in > fixing them either. I personally don't see that it should be blocking the > approval of this and I can't see any other blockers. Well, there is also the "pre-built libraries need to be removed in %prep issue". When I brought this up months ago, it was not strictly required. But now we have a guideline which makes this a MUST: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_libraries -- 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