https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100925 --- Comment #10 from Igor Gnatenko <i.gnatenko.brain@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to David Tardon from comment #9) > (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #8) > > (In reply to David Tardon from comment #7) > > > (In reply to David Tardon from comment #5) > > > > (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #3) > > > > > - librevenge.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency > > > > > /usr/lib64/librevenge-generators-0.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 > > > > > > Or does this mean that librevenge-generators-0.0.so.0.0.0 needs on > > > libm.so.6, even though it does not use it? If so, then I can only repeat > > > that libm.so.6 is already needed by libstdc++.so.6, so I do not see this as > > > a problem. > > > > This mean, that you linked with libm.so, but librevenge doesn't using it.(In > > reply to David Tardon from comment #5) > > Yeah. But I explained why this does not matter in reality. I would prefer to fix this, because rpmlint warning. This an easy to fix. > > > > > > > - Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. > > > > -> I think you could patch it. there need '-p' for `install` command. NOT > > > > BLOCKER. > > > > > > I do not call install manually anywhere... > > calls to install becomes from Makefile.* you can see in logs something like > > this: > > install -c -m 0644 blahblah /usr/share/blahblah > > and more better if we will see '-p' there. > > Yes, but these makefiles are generated by automake. And there might be a > reason why -p is not used. > > > (In reply to David Tardon from comment #4) > > > (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #2) > > > > > %autosetup -p1 > > > > use %setup -q and %patch0 -p1, %patch1 -p1 > > > > > > No. There is no chance this is ever going to be backported to EPEL-6. > > hm. Why ? AFAIK there present setup and patch macroses. > > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/zabbix.git/tree/zabbix.spec#n273 > > zabbix available for EL6 and (IIRC) EL5. Please change this macroses. > > Because using %patchX is error-prone (it is far too easy to add a patch but > forget to apply it), it needs more typing and, frankly, it is just useless > now that rpmbuild in all active versions of Fedora supports %autosetup. Ack. > > > > > > > > > > > > >make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} > > > > you could use %make_install instead, but that's not should item. > > > > > > I am pretty sure that the use of %make_install is prohibited in Fedora. > > it's available for EL6 and probably for EL5. > > [root@monitoring ~]# rpm --eval %make_install > > make install > > DESTDIR=/root/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.x86_64 > > [root@monitoring ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release > > CentOS release 6.5 (Final) > > Ah, actually the prohibited macro is %makeinstall (without the '_'). Anyway, > Packaging Guidelines say that %make_install, "make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} > install" and "make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install" are equivalent. Yes. That's so. No problem. I've said this for information.) Ok. I'll recheck after 1.5h and approve. Thank you for work! -- 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