https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040027 Orion Poplawski <orion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Orion Poplawski <orion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Sorry, I should have explicitly mentioned to ignore the rpmlint warnings. (In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #8) > Thanks! I've fixed all of those, except the rpmlint warnings. As I said, the > URL error is weird since it is correct when opened manually. Spelling > mistakes are actually file paths. About documentation, should I duplicate > the LICENSE in each subpackage? Yeah, URL warning is weird, but I could download fine too. No need to duplicate the LICENSE in each subpackage because they all end up requiring the base package which requires it. > Finally, the unused-direct-shlib-dependency warning is about libgcc_s.so.1, > which is apparently always used by g++: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2006-11/msg00023.html > Do you think I should pass "-Wl,--as-needed"? This is an issue with the g++ linker always adding it. I suppose you could try adding as-needed, but not a big deal. > The new versions are at: > http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/double-conversion.spec > http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/double-conversion-2.0.0-2.fc19.src. > rpm > > (Sorry, I get a crash when I try to run fedora-review. I'm going to upgrade > to F20 soon.) Ah, I doubt you need BR libstdc++-devel as well. Also, move %check after %install - nice to keep them in execution order. Those are minor though so I'm going to approve now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review