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: nspluginwrapper - A compatibility layer for Mozilla/Firefox plugins Alias: nspluginwrapper https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236521 atkac@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(stransky@xxxxxxxxx | |m) ------- Additional Comments From atkac@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-07-27 07:31 EST ------- rpmlint says: E: nspluginwrapper hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib - if no sophisticated solution exists (like %{_exec_prefix}/{target_libdir})leave this be... E: nspluginwrapper configure-without-libdir-spec - doesn't matter, %{_prefix} is defined and --with-lib{32,64} is specified additional questions: - why statements like %if "%{target_bits}" == "64" export CFLAGS="-g -m64 -DDEBUG" %else export CFLAGS="-g -m32 -DDEBUG" %endif I think it could be substituted with export CFLAGS="$CFLAGS $RPM_OPT_FLAGS" export CPPFLAGS="$CPPFLAGS -DDEBUG" - this statement isn't needed %if "%{target_bits}" == "64" export LDFLAGS="-m64 -L%{libdir64}" %else export LDFLAGS="-m32 -L%{libdir32}" %endif -in %install section I've found ln -s %{pkglibdir}/npwrapper.so $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{plugindir}/npwrapper.so isn't it typo? (ln -s $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{pkglibdir}/npwrapper.so $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{plugindir}/npwrapper.so) Other things look fine. Please only check potential problems written upper. If I'm wrong leave them be... Adam -- 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