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=225253 Jon Ciesla <limburgher@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |ERRATA Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Last Closed| |2012-04-10 08:23:01 --- Comment #24 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-04-10 08:23:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #23) > (In reply to comment #22) > > Fresh review. > > > > Good: > > > > - rpmlint checks return: > > > > apr-devel.x86_64: E: rpath-in-buildconfig /usr/bin/apr-1-config lines ['46'] > > This build configuration file contains rpaths which will be introduced into > > dependent packages. > > This isn't correct, when -rpath passed to libtool when linking a library it > does not introduce RPATHs; that is the intended use here. Ok, reasonable. > > apr-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apr-1-config > > Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. > > > > Fix if possible. > > Patches welcome for that one! If it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. :) > > > There is one .la file, in -devel, %{_libdir}/libapr-1.la. > > > > This needs to go either in -static, or -devel needs Provides: apr-static = > > %{version}-%{release} > > Why? There is no static library in this package, per comment 21. Ah, I see. Thanks, that should be it then. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review