Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 roozbeh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|roozbeh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-06 05:39 EST ------- (In reply to comment #13) > Some more fixes in -3.fc7. Thanks a lot. > It would make a lot more sense to give the package to e.g. > devhelp, which can actually use the content of those directories at runtime. Considering the discussions on bug 225875 (see comments by Patrice Dumas and Ralf Corsepius), please either own the directory or depend on something that does. I believe this is mostly to make sure that installing the package and then removing it doesn't leave empty directories around. All other blockers are fixed now. The package is fine if this problem gets fixed either way. Final rpmlint output: W: glib2 non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/glib2.sh W: glib2 non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/glib2.csh E: glib2-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib E: glib2-static devel-dependency glib2-devel W: glib2-static no-documentation W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libglib-2.0.a W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libgobject-2.0.a W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libgthread-2.0.a W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libgmodule-2.0.a (All are fine) -- 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