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=761619 --- Comment #2 from David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-12-22 05:23:00 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) > You've explained the dangling symlinks, and I think that's OK. Possibly I should just put all the manual page symlinks into the doc rpm, though I'd prefer them only to be installed if the things they're describing are present. > If you can arrange a man page for ld, that would be nice but it's not mandatory. There are manual pages for ld. Do you mean ld.bfd? If so, there is no manual page specifically for that. I'm not entirely sure what the ld.bfd is for. > We'll have to check what the rules are for non-standard directories in /usr, I wonder if that's going to happen if I let it create, say, /usr/xtensa-linux-gnu/ instead of /usr/cross/xtensa-linux-gnu/. I wonder if these things should be in /usr/libexec. > and the cross-directory hard links. I missed that. Interesting... I wonder if the core binutils package does this too. Even though it's marked as a cross-dir hardlink, it isn't installed so (even though it could be). > Also: > cross-binutils.src:49: W: macro-in-comment %{version} That's a comment borrowed from the original binutils.spec. I should probably keep it as long as that does. > cross-binutils.src:138: W: macro-in-comment %ifarch > cross-binutils.src:139: W: macro-in-comment %if > cross-binutils.src:139: W: macro-in-comment %{_lib} > cross-binutils.src:140: W: macro-in-comment %patch03 > cross-binutils.src:141: W: macro-in-comment %endif > cross-binutils.src:142: W: macro-in-comment %endif I'm not sure whether I need this. I should find an IA64 box and try it. > cross-binutils.src:398: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} > cross-binutils.src:398: W: macro-in-comment %{_prefix} > cross-binutils.src:399: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} > cross-binutils.src:399: W: macro-in-comment %{_mandir} I should get rid of those. > cross-binutils.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch3: > binutils-2.20.51.0.2-ia64-lib64.patch That's one of the original binutils.spec patches and is related to the macro-in-comment warnings of lines 138-142. I wonder if I should just apply all of the original binutils.spec patches as applied by that? -- 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