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=526916 --- Comment #15 from Fabian Deutsch <fabian.deutsch@xxxxxx> 2010-03-18 10:49:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) > There are several problems with this package. > - The testsuite is failing > * Most problem seems related to libtool not patched to use /usr/lib64 by > default, so it could be easier to use autoreconf -vif .. > - There is still rpath on produced binaries (at least on x86_64) by disabled > with autoreconf using autoreconf -vif did the trick. > - building docs produce errors. (missing BR ?) There are two missing files and another file not processed. I fixed the two missing files, btut do not know how to fix the version.entities-issue, but does not seem to be to critical ... > - It's usually better to install with install -p to prevents timestamp change > for headers, doing like: > make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL="install -p" if this way is better: why is it not the default? > - rpmlint on installed file isn't quiet: > rpmlint orc > orc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liborc-0.4.so.0.0.0 floor > orc.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/liborc-0.4.so.0.0.0 sqrtf > orc.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > /usr/lib64/liborc-pixel-0.4.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 > orc.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > /usr/lib64/liborc-pixel-0.4.so.0.0.0 /lib64/librt.so.1 > orc.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > /usr/lib64/liborc-float-0.4.so.0.0.0 /lib64/librt.so.1 > -> liborc misses -lm at link time. current rpmlint: [fabiand@proprietary Downloads]$ ls orc-* orc-0.4.3-2.fc14.i686.rpm orc-debuginfo-0.4.3-2.fc14.i686.rpm orc-devel-0.4.3-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm orc-0.4.3-2.fc14.src.rpm orc-debuginfo-0.4.3-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm orc-doc-0.4.3-2.fc14.i686.rpm orc-0.4.3-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm orc-devel-0.4.3-2.fc14.i686.rpm orc-doc-0.4.3-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm [fabiand@proprietary Downloads]$ rpmlint -v orc* orc.i686: I: checking orc.i686: I: checking-url http://code.entropywave.com/projects/orc/ (timeout 10 seconds) orc.src: I: checking orc.src: I: checking-url http://code.entropywave.com/projects/orc/ (timeout 10 seconds) orc.src: I: checking-url http://code.entropywave.com/download/orc/orc-0.4.3.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) orc.x86_64: I: checking orc.x86_64: I: checking-url http://code.entropywave.com/projects/orc/ (timeout 10 seconds) orc-debuginfo.i686: I: checking orc-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://code.entropywave.com/projects/orc/ (timeout 10 seconds) orc-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking orc-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://code.entropywave.com/projects/orc/ (timeout 10 seconds) orc-devel.i686: I: checking orc-devel.i686: I: checking-url http://code.entropywave.com/projects/orc/ (timeout 10 seconds) orc-devel.x86_64: I: checking orc-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url http://code.entropywave.com/projects/orc/ (timeout 10 seconds) orc-doc.i686: I: checking orc-doc.i686: I: checking-url http://code.entropywave.com/projects/orc/ (timeout 10 seconds) orc-doc.x86_64: I: checking orc-doc.x86_64: I: checking-url http://code.entropywave.com/projects/orc/ (timeout 10 seconds) 9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > - Contradiction with README: > - Q: How big is the Orc library? > > A: Compiled with only one target (SSE), the library size is about > 86 kB uncompressed, or 30 kB compressed. The goal is to keep the > uncompressed size under about 100 kB. > # ls -alh /usr/lib64/liborc-0.4.so.0.0.0 > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 293K mars 8 23:03 /usr/lib64/liborc-0.4.so.0.0.0 > Do we know if this library grown abnormally or that was expected and the > README need to be corrected ? Good question. I'm sending this question upstream ... Spec and srpm: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~fabiand/fedora/orc/2/orc.spec http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~fabiand/fedora/orc/2/orc-0.4.3-2.fc14.src.rpm -- 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