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: anjuta - A GNOME development IDE for C/C++ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433199 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-05-25 16:13 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=306628) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=306628&action=view) rpmlint of 2.4.1-1.fc10 I see rpmlint log of 2.4.1-1.fc10 anjuta binary rpms on i386 I see is attached. Does this log coincide with what you see? Then: A. anjuta-devel.i386: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/anjuta/libfile-manager.so libfile-manager.so.0.0.0 anjuta-devel.i386: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/anjuta/liblanguage-manager.so liblanguage-manager.so.0.0.0 - These are symlinks to plugin modules, not system-wide libraries and should be main anjuta package, not in -devel package. B. anjuta.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/anjuta/project/anjuta-plugin/src/plugin.c and etc - I saw these rpmlint also in 2.2.3 era and I guess these files must be main package (per your comment 2) C. anjuta.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/anjuta-build-basic-autotools-plugin.schemas and etc - You can just ignore all. Actually gconf schemas files are not config file, however perhaps for historical reason they are put under /etc. D. anjuta-devel.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib - Perhaps you can ignore this. E. anjuta.i386: E: zero-length /usr/share/anjuta/project/mkfile/po/ChangeLog - Same as B. -- 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