https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871037 --- Comment #7 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #5) > I will think about this. Before I need more knowledges about this > posibilites. So I built a library with only thats requires which I enough > good understand. Sure, I understand. > Thanks! I will forward this to upstream. Let's patch the bug for Fedora, also, so Fedora users don't suffer its (admittedly unknown) consequences. > > Third, the unused direct shared library dependency warnings from rpmlint can > > be eliminated by adding this to the %configure line: > > LDFLAGS="-Wl,--as-needed $RPM_LD_FLAGS". > Hm... I don't understand your reply. I actually did a build with the modified %configure line I proposed, and it worked fine. Eliminating unused library links is a good thing; for example, it reduces address space pressure on 32-bit builds. > > Fourth, another option for the Source0 download URL is Source0: > > http://downloads.sourceforge.net/rusxmms/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 (see > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net). (I'm > > not saying you have to switch, just that sourceforge is a known quantity > > when it comes to downloads.) > Sourceforge hasn't librcc-0.2.9.tar.gz so I use dside.dyndns.org. > I will request to an author to use sourceforge for all sources. This works for me: $ wget http://downloads.sourceforge.net/rusxmms/librcc-0.2.9.tar.bz2 So it looks like librcc-0.2.9.tar.bz2 is already there. (In reply to comment #6) > So do you approve the package? I would first like to see a modified spec file with (a) a patch for the off-by-one error, and (b) unused direct dependencies on shared libraries eliminated (whether using -Wl,--as-needed or some other mechanism). -- 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