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: librep - An embeddable LISP environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431250 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-02-02 10:24 EST ------- This fails to build for me: /bin/sh ../libtool --mode=link gcc -o repdoc repdoc.o -lgdbm /bin/sh: ../libtool: No such file or directory make[1]: *** [repdoc] Error 127 make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/librep-0.17/src' make: *** [src/repdoc] Error 2 Adding BuildRequires: libtool gets things to progress further, until: Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /var/tmp/librep-0.17-2.svn20071102.fc9-root-mockbuild error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/share/info/dir You need to explicitly delete this file, which is generated as part of the texinfo compilation but should never be part of any package. At the end of %install: rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_infodir}/dir Things build after that. rpmlint then says: librep.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.17-2 0.17-2.svn20071102.fc9 Your changelog entries should match the version. librep-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation This is OK, but you should consider whether any of the documentation you package is more appropriate for the -devel package. I notice a bunch of .la files packaged. Generally these should not be packaged; do you have some specific reason for doing so? Are the .jl and .jlc files arch-neutral? Otherwise they will conflict when both i386 and x86_64 packages are installed together. There'a a bunch of stuff installed into /usr/libexec/rep that seems better suited to %{_libdir}/rep instead. Generally I'd expect to see only executables in /usr/libexec. (See what gcc does, for example.) I do not know if this opinion is widely held, however. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review