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: aplus-fsf - Advanced APL Interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174021 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-15 11:12 EST ------- You're right about renaming the xemacs subpackage; the naming guidelines have changed since this review started. Unfortunately my testing infrastructure has changed as well, and I'm now doing a proper rpmlint on the installed package, which turns up an additional category of problems. Firstly there's this warning about the srpm which I don't really have a problem with: W: aplus-fsf setup-not-quiet It wants you to use "-q" on the %setup line. Then there's three no-documentation warnings, which are OK: W: fonts-truetype-apl no-documentation W: fonts-x11-apl no-documentation W: xemacs-aplus-fsf no-documentation And finally there are nearly 3800 undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings, of the form: W: aplus-fsf undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libesf-4.20.2.so P1 W: aplus-fsf undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libesf-4.20.2.so APL I will attach a full list, or you can just run "rpmlint aplus-fsf" with the package already installed. It looks like the libraries themselves are merely compiled but not linked against each other; the loading program has to be set up to link in all of the necessary libraries in the proper order. It seems this not allowed in Fedora, but I'm not sure how reasonable it is to fix it. I'm asking around to find how strong the prohibition is. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
