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=554464 --- Comment #8 from Tadej Janež <tadej.janez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-06-03 10:52:48 EDT --- Thanks for a quick reply! (In reply to comment #7) > > There are some rpmlint warnings (just posting the relevant ones, which are not > ignorable): > python-pebl.src:56: W: macro-in-comment %check > python-pebl.src:57: W: macro-in-comment %{__python} > > -> ignorable, because they remind you to add %check again I left the %check disabled and added a comment to the .spec file saying why it is currently disabled. > python-pebl.src:61: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} > python-pebl.src:62: W: macro-in-comment %{python_sitelib} > > -> Better prefix an %, so this won't show up anymore Ok, fixed. > python-pebl.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/pebl/_network.so _network.so()(64bit) > python-pebl.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides > /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/pebl/_cpd.so _cpd.so()(64bit) > > -> A solution for this is e.g. in bug 537983 comment 27. Ok, I tried your solution, however, I don't know if I used it correctly. The output log of rpmbuild still indicates these unnecessary provides: Finding Provides: /usr/lib/rpm/find-provides | grep -v -e '_cpd.so|_network.so' Finding Requires: /usr/lib/rpm/find-requires | grep -v -e '_cpd.so|_network.so' Provides: _cpd.so _network.so Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(PartialHardlinkSets) <= 4.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 Requires: /usr/bin/python libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libpthread.so.0 libpython2.6.so.1.0 However, rpmlint doesn't give the above 2 warnings anymore. What is happening here? > python-pebl.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object > /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/pebl/_network.so > python-pebl.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object > /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/pebl/_cpd.so > > This is a bit strange... Do you have a debuginfo package? I'm wondering, why > there isn't one here... Yes, I see a separate python-pebl-debuginfo-1.0.2-2.fc13.i686.rpm package built on my system. Also, that is why I don't see the above rpmlint error messages. > There is /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/pebl/test/ > Is that needed at runtime? If not, it would be nice, if you'd delete that (or > ask upstream to do so). Ok, I removed test and test.manual from the final rpm file. See the new .spec file and .src.rpm at http://tadej.fedorapeople.org/. -- 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