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=559699 Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <fdinitto@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <fdinitto@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-15 02:04:00 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) > Fabio, > > please find updated SRPM and specfile at the same URLs: > > SRPM: http://people.redhat.com/~nsantos/qpid-cpp-0.5.829175-4.fc13.src.rpm > spec: http://people.redhat.com/~nsantos/qpid-cpp.spec > > > I put the patches back in, it's generating the correct version of .so now. Ok, the update/rename path looks good now and I was able to replace the old packages with no problems. > > Regarding the version, this is 0.5.829175-4, which is higher than what was in > rawhide before (qpidc-0.5.819819-1.fc13), and the same codebase but a revision > higher than what's in F12 (qpidc-0.5.829175-3.fc12). Ok. > > I fixed most of the warnings from rpmlint (except for "no-documentation", etc), > but these errors are still present (explanations for each are inline): > * qpid-cpp-server.i686: E: non-readable /var/lib/qpidd/qpidd.sasldb 0600 > - this is supposed to non-readble Ok, I can see that in the spec file too and it is OK, but generally is a good idea to document in the spec file why. > * qpid-cpp-server-store.i686: E: explicit-lib-dependency libaio > - there is no explicit lib dependency, there is a requires for a package > named libaio: "Requires: libaio" (line 281) You have to drop the explicit Requires: libaio. rpm dependency resolver will add that automatically for you. > * qpid-cpp-server-store.i686: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/rhm 0775 > - supposed to have those permissions same as above.. document why. > * ruby-qmf.i686: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath > /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/i386-linux/qmfengine.so > ['/builddir/build/BUILD/qpidc-0.5.829175/cpp/src/.libs'] > - not sure why it's complaining, I'm using the standard ruby_sitelib and > ruby_sitearch macros, not hardcoding any path I won´t make this a blocker for the package to be renamed, but please cross check with ruby packaging policy and the ruby team. It might be a bug that´s been introduced on the ruby macro. So just to make this quick, I´ll approve the rename of the package, but please fix those bits when importing into cvs. Fabio -- 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