https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066026 --- Comment #4 from Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Kamil Dudka from comment #3) > Thanks for your comments on this review request! > > (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #1) > > I fail to see why this package would require static linking against libc. > > csmock copies the resulting (cscppc, cswrap) binaries into mock chroot, > which may contain an older (e.g. RHEL-5) version of glibc, and they would > not dynamically link against the old version of glibc if they were built > against a newer one. I will put there a comment to make it obvious. > > (In reply to Dan Horák from comment #2) > > You can modernize your specs unless you need to support EL-5 > > - drop BuildRoot tag > > - drop %clean section > > - remove the rm -rf "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" command in %install > > - drop %defattr in %files > > rpm itself cares for this. > > Those were added on purpose, as we do build the packages for RHEL-5. We > even patch Boost libraries to make the package compile and work properly on > RHEL-5. > > https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/codescan-diff.git/commit/?id=433e0507 > > But it should not be a big deal to maintain the RHEL-5 spec file > separately... if RHEL-5 is supported by the tools then it's fine to have the now obsoleted stuff in the spec, definitely no need to create a RHEL-5 specific spec. -- 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