Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: cegui (0.5.x branch) - Free library providing windowing and widgets for graphics APIs / engines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=242566 ------- Additional Comments From packages@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-06-09 19:24 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > I'll take a quick look. I won't do a full review because I trust things like > the upstream source and licensing and such are OK. No probs :-) > The versioning seems OK; the "b" is a post-release update, not "beta", or at > least it seems that way from the upstream web pages. Yep, that's pretty much the case. the 'b' release was a quick bug fixed version of 0.5.0. > rpmlint spews a massive boatload of warnings. Well over 1300 of them. Most are > undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings; some are unused-direct-shlib-dependency. I > haven't a clue about how you'd go about fixing them. Hmm, I was confused by this because for me rpmlint only reports two messages, the first one is the usual no documentation found in the devel package, and the second is that the devel-doc package requires the -devel package. Both of wish are not real errors and are ingorable. Can I ask which release/arch you tested it on? I was using FC6/i386. > I'd give my ack to this if I understood the rpmlint warnings or was convinced > they're unfixable. They're the only thing I see of issue with this package. No problem Jason. Thanks for the headsup, I'll look into those message and see if I can figure out the cause and if anything needs doing. -- 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