https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1335988 --- Comment #23 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jerry James from comment #22) > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #21) > > No; maybe is related to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350911. > > That could be, but doesn't that imply that the symbols in libgslcblas are > not used at all, just the symbols in the underlying blas library? Or maybe > undefined symbols mess up the unused-direct-shlib-dependency check somehow. I don't know. For upstream is not a problem: http://xcas.e.ujf-grenoble.fr/XCAS/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1725 > > This looks much better. There is still an unowned directory problem, > though. The giac-doc package puts files into the language-specific > directories, which it does not own, namely > /usr/share/giac/doc/{de,el,en,es,fr,zh}. Fixed. > > Also, there are still a few issues from comment 17 that have not been > addressed completely: > > - The spec file contains an ExclusiveArch tag with a note about PPC and > aarch64. What are the issues? Is somebody working to resolve them? This > information would be useful in a spec file comment. Also, is it only PPC > and aarch64 that are not ready? If so, ExcludeArch should be used instead > of ExclusiveArch. What about mips, for example? PPC and aarch64 not supported. > > - Would it be possible/advisable to split out the noarch files under > %{_datadir} into a noarch subpackage that is required by the main package? > That would allow sharing across architectures. Data/doc files splitting is already a little confused. > > - There is still one hidden-file-or-dir warning. Is this file needed? > giac-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/share/giac/examples/Exemples/analyse/._signal.xws Fixed. Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/giac/giac.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/giac/giac-1.2.2-5.63.fc24.src.rpm -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx