https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793156 --- Comment #3 from William Cohen <wcohen@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks for the quick review. The difference between the checksums(SHA256) was due to using a local "git archive ...". The download from github is used in http://people.redhat.com/wcohen/rr/rr-5.3.0.9000-3.fc30.src.rpm, so the checksums should agree now. Yes, /usr/lib64/rr/librrpreload.so is unversioned. It looks like many other packages with internally used shared libraries in /usr/lib64/ are unversioned also. The package does build with dts9 on RHEL7. Having the conditionals in there is intentional. There are issues with EPEL build roots on koji that prevent it from building there. A issue has been filed for that: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8528 Unfortunately, the "%undefine __brp_mangle_shebangs" is needed at the moment. As you noticed there are some files in /usr/bin/ that are not programs or scripts. Without turning the mangling off the mangler gets confused by those files and the rpmbuild fails. I just filed https://github.com/mozilla/rr/issues/2431 with upstream rr to note that issue. It would definitely be better to have the rr_page_* files not in /usr/bin. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
