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=463767 --- Comment #13 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-16 11:13:28 EDT --- Well, would you change the release number every time you modify your spec file? (In reply to comment #12) > cloog.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libcloog.so.0.0.0 > exit@xxxxxxxxxxx - This library actually calls exit() in the library (e.g. source/names.c). This is unusual situation. Usually when some unexpected behavior happens in a function in a library, the function should return a value which tells the error or so and should call exit() ($ rpmlint -I shared-lib-calls-exit shows the explanation). Would you contact upstream? > cloog-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation - This warning can be ignored. > I'd appreciate any help there. > >? Some header files design flaw > > - Well, for example the head of %_includedir/cloog/cloog.h > > says: > >---------------------------------------------------------- > > 40 #ifndef CLOOG_H > > 41 #define CLOOG_H > > 42 > > 43 #ifdef CLOOG_PPL_BACKEND > > 44 # define GNUMP > > 45 # include<cloog/ppl_backend.h> > > 46 #else > > 47 # include <polylib/missing.h> > > 48 # include<cloog/polylib_backend.h> > > 49 #endif > >---------------------------------------------------------- > > However, where can we tell if CLOOG_PPL_BACKEND is defined > > or not (when this package was built) (i.e whether this header > > file includes ppl_backend.h or polylib_backend.h)? > > build.log shows that when rebuilding this package -DCLOOG_PPL_BACKEND > > is used, however installed header files does not save such > > information.... > > How can I fix this ? I mean this is an upstream problem. Do you mean I should > append a patch to the package ? > I could as well ship the package as is, and submit a patch upstream to fix it ? - For this issue, I don't think this issue can be unresolved (I won't approve this package unless this is fixed). At least a patch should be appended or so and also this must be fixed upstream. -- 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