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=681976 --- Comment #4 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> 2011-05-03 15:22:49 EDT --- $ rpmlint ./openfst.spec ./openfst.spec:68: E: hardcoded-library-path in ../../lib/.libs ./openfst.spec:70: E: hardcoded-library-path in ../../lib/.libs ./openfst.spec:72: E: hardcoded-library-path in ../../lib/.libs ./openfst.spec:74: E: hardcoded-library-path in ../../lib/.libs ./openfst.spec:78: E: hardcoded-library-path in ../../lib/.libs ./openfst.spec: W: invalid-url Source2: openfst-man.tar.xz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 1 warnings. For the hardcoded-library-path it's not that obvious exactly what is going on but by x86_64 builds end up in the correct location so probably fine. $ rpmlint ./openfst-1.2.7-1.fc16.src.rpm openfst.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automata -> automats, automat, automate openfst.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US determinization -> determination, deterministically, deterministic determinization is probably okay in american-english I would have thought even it makes me cringe, maybe determining is better? automa seems to be included twice so is probably intentional. $ rpmlint ./openfst-1.2.7-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm openfst.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automata -> automats, automat, automate openfst.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US determinization -> determination, deterministically, deterministic openfst.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libfstfarscript.so.0.0.0 exit@xxxxxxxxxxx openfst.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libfstpdtscript.so.0.0.0 exit@xxxxxxxxxxx openfst.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libfstscript.so.0.0.0 exit@xxxxxxxxxxx openfst.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libfst.so.0.0.0 exit@xxxxxxxxxxx 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. You may want to at least submit bugs upstream about those exits. $ rpmlint ./openfst-tools-1.2.7-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ./openfst-devel-1.2.7-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm openfst-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation openfst-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/fst/compact16_acceptor-fst.so compact16_acceptor-fst.so.0.0.0 openfst-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/fst/compact8_unweighted-fst.so compact8_unweighted-fst.so.0.0.0 openfst-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/fst/compact64_unweighted-fst.so compact64_unweighted-fst.so.0.0.0 openfst-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/fst/compact64_unweighted_acceptor-fst.so compact64_unweighted_acceptor-fst.so.0.0.0 openfst-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/fst/compact8_acceptor-fst.so compact8_acceptor-fst.so.0.0.0 openfst-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/fst/arc_lookahead-fst.so arc_lookahead-fst.so.0.0.0 openfst-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/fst/olabel_lookahead-fst.so olabel_lookahead-fst.so.0.0.0 openfst-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/fst/compact16_unweighted-fst.so compact16_unweighted-fst.so.0.0.0 openfst-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/fst/const8-fst.so const8-fst.so.0.0.0 openfst-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/fst/compact64_acceptor-fst.so compact64_acceptor-fst.so.0.0.0 openfst-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/fst/compact64_string-fst.so compact64_string-fst.so.0.0.0 .... These are links from -devel package to the main package so they are all satisfied. You can get rid of the warnings of course by making non relative with pushd popd. which would make the rpmlint a lot cleaner. -- 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