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: libGPP4 - LGPL CCP4 library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435015 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-06-06 15:12 EST ------- I'm wondering if it wouldn't just be simpler to call the package libgpp4 and save yourself the trouble. As it is, get things like this nice long %description which doesn't actually make it into any of the packages. Plenty of rpmlint spew worth looking at: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libgpp4-devel-1.0.4/doc/latex/csym_f_page.tex doxygen creates this; I'm not sure if it's worth converting or if it even matters. There are several complaints about the contents of the "test" directory being packaged as documentation, which I think is particularly ill-advised. Why aren't the tests just called at build time in a %check section? W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/libgpp4-devel-1.0.4/test/load_syminfo W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/libgpp4-devel-1.0.4/test/.libs/load_syminfo rtld(GNU_HASH) W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/libgpp4-devel-1.0.4/test/.libs/load_syminfo libc.so.6()(64bit) W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/libgpp4-devel-1.0.4/test/.libs/load_syminfo libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/libgpp4-devel-1.0.4/test/.libs/load_syminfo libm.so.6()(64bit) W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/libgpp4-devel-1.0.4/test/.libs W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/libgpp4-devel-1.0.4/test/.deps E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/doc/libgpp4-devel-1.0.4/test/load_syminfo.o E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share /usr/share/doc/libgpp4-devel-1.0.4/test/.libs/load_syminfo -- 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