Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464074 --- Comment #13 from Conrad Meyer <konrad@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-28 15:12:35 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12) > cddlib-debuginfo.i386: E: empty-debuginfo-package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Debuginfo suggests I should look for -s being passed to gcc or ld, or strip being called somewhere. I'm now building in mock to be able to grep over a build.log for these. > The file: > examples-ml/Combinatorica5.m > Cannot be included in Fedora cue to the following licensing clause: > > This package may be copied in its entirety for nonprofit purposes only. > Sale, other than for the direct cost of the media, is prohibited. This > copyright notice must accompany all copies. Good spot. Will rm in prep. > Why -devel and not -static, as there are no solibs? "2. Static libraries only. When a package only provides static libraries you can place all the static library files in the *-devel subpackage. When doing this you also must have a virtual Provide for the *-static package." from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries My personal reason? There are header files too, therefore it's useful for devel. > I'm ok with the docs/examples being bundled, they're not that big, left to > packager discretion IMHO. > > Otherwise, a good review. Checking mock BRs, will be slightly delayed there > due to system issues. :( Thanks for helping Paulo out. I appreciate the input from both of you! -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review