Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: seedit: SELinux Policy Editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222594 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-01-18 03:13 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > >#policy,gui subpackages are build only when arch is "noarch" >--> why don't you > set them to noarch in spec file ? > > I wanted to make noarch.rpm not i386.rpm for doc and gui subpackage, > but it seems that such sub packages are usually build as i386.rpm in fedora. Right, this is impossible. All packages being built from a common src.rpm share the same arch. More comments: - MUSTFIX: Package doesn't honor RPM_OPT_FLAGS: ... gcc -c -Wall -O2 -g -DDEBUG=1 -I../include -I/usr/include/selinux lex.yy.c .. - SHOULDFIX: Incorrect include directory -I/usr/include ... cc -Werror -Wall -W -I/usr/include -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_GNU_SOURCE -I../include -I/usr/include/selinux -Dfc6 -c -o seedit-restorecon.o ... Passing -I/usr/include is a mistake. You should never pass -I/usr/include. - MUSTFIX: Directory /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/seedit is unowned. The seedit package must known this directory. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review