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=585719 --- Comment #11 from Alain PORTAL <alain.portal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-04-30 17:09:33 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > (In reply to comment #7) > > > rpmlint: > > > > > > - E: empty-debuginfo-package. > > > > Unable to fix :-( > > This package has a strange buildsystem, Yes, it has!!! It use premake (http://industriousone.com/premake) which use lua (http://www.lua.org/) > and doesn't honor %{optflags}, if it > would, there would most likely be a debuginfo-package. > Maybe you could try to patch the buildsystem to respect it > (Just exporting CFLAGS or something is unlikely to work, but I didn't try > that.) > > > > - E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath > > > /usr/lib64/wxformbuilder/libwxadditions-mini.so ['$ORIGIN'] > > > - E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/wxformbuilder > > > ['$ORIGIN/../lib/wxformbuilder'] > > > Must be fixed > > > > I don't how. > > $ rpmlint -I binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath > binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath: > The binary or shared library defines `RPATH'. Usually this is a bad thing > because it hardcodes the path to search libraries and so makes it difficult to > move libraries around. Most likely you will find a Makefile with a line like: > gcc test.o -o test -Wl,--rpath. Also, sometimes configure scripts provide a > --disable-rpath flag to avoid this. I would be happy if there was a configure script... > and: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Removing_Rpath Thank to remember me that this page evolves... > > > > > - W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/ld.so.conf.d/wxformbuilder.conf > > > Add %config tag in %files > > > > Fixed > > (Not yet in the spec linked above) Of course ;) I didn't commit it. A such poor fix... > > > > > - W: invalid-url Source0: wxformbuilder-3.1.68.tar.bz2 > > > ignore. > > > > > > > > > A first look on license indicate GPLv2+, not GPLv2. More on that later. > > > > GGPL sayed: Version 2, June 1991, not "or later".. > > I would be please... > > Look at a random *.h or *.cpp file. In the header you can find: > * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or > > * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License > > * as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 > > * of the License, or (at your option) any later version. My apologies, I didn't investigate enough, you (and Terje) are right. > > > > > You can use xz (tar cJvf ...) to compress the tarball, saves 10%. > > > > ???? > > x is for extract... > > > > z is for bzip, j (as I used) is for bzip2... > > He means: http://tukaani.org/xz/ another compressing format and not bzip. > All rpms are compressed with that and that compressing format is better that > the other. If you choose to use xz, you could maybe not use that on EL (once > had a problem with that, don't know if that's resolved.) This is a misunderstood,I didn't know xz. But I won't use it as I get enough problems with el5... http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2150700 -- 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