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=601577 --- Comment #10 from Matthias Runge <mrunge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-29 07:40:36 EDT --- nevermind. Sadly, I didn't get any answer from upstream yet. Wouldn't it be possible to do a dual license: LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+ (should it be and?) As you have seen, I renamed the package to lockfile and created a -libs subpackage. Looking deeper into the library.thing, I found out, the lib was created statically. This is fixed now. mrunge@sofja SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/i686/lockfile-1.08-4.fc13.i686.rpm ../RPMS/i686/lockfile-devel-1.08-4.fc13.i686.rpm ../RPMS/i686/lockfile-debuginfo-1.08-4.fc13.i686.rpm ../RPMS/i686/lockfile-libs-1.08-4.fc13.i686.rpm lockfile.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lmail -> mail, email, l mail lockfile.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lmail -> mail, email, l mail lockfile-libs.i686: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib/liblockfile.so.1.0 lockfile-libs.i686: E: shlib-with-non-pic-code /usr/lib/liblockfile.so.1.0 lockfile-libs.i686: W: no-documentation lockfile-libs.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/liblockfile.so 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. sadly, rpmlint complains about two errors; both of them I cannot understand. I provide a symlink and an ldconfig-call. Can you give me a hint? The second error is strange to me, too, because lib is built with the -fPIC compile-option. Fixed SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/lockfile.spec SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/lockfile-1.08-4.fc13.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