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: ClanLib - Cross platform C++ game library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199630 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-21 01:47 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Blocker : How does the ClanLib licence marry up to the LGPL? Nearest to it > would > be just "distributable" or better still, ClanLib. Darn, I forgot about that, the clanlib homepage says that it is LGPL, but the sources seem to disagree I wanted to add a note to the review about this I agree this needs fixing. I've done some more investigating it turns out that 0.6 is LGPL and 0.8 is under the zlib License, which explains the homepage (they most likely forgot to update this), good. The license is the "zlib License" which is in rpmlints list of licenses. I'll fix this up together with other nescesarry fixes once a full review is done. > You will need to include the license in %docs > It already is: %defattr(-,root,root,-) %doc COPYING CREDITS NEWS TODO-RSN > You need BR zlib-devel for it to build in mock > Erm: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpm -q --requires libpng-devel libpng-devel-1.2.10-6.x86_64 /bin/sh libpng = 2:1.2.10-6 libpng12.so.0()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 zlib-devel So that should get dragged in by libpng-devel (In reply to comment #3) > rpmlint errors and warnings. > > devel : > E : ClanLib-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > All of the warnings are the same (dangling-relative-symlink) - there are 13 in total > W: ClanLib-devel dangling-relative-symlink > /usr/lib/ClanLib-0.8/libclanNetwork.so ../libclanNetwork-0.8.so.1.0.0 > W: ClanLib-devel dangling-relative-symlink > /usr/lib/ClanLib-0.8/libclanGUIStyleSilver.so ../libclanGUIStyleSilver-0.8.so.1.0.0 > W: ClanLib-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/ClanLib-0.8/libclanGUI.so > ../libclanGUI-0.8.so.1.0.0 > W: ClanLib-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/ClanLib-0.8/libclanGL.so > ../libclanGL-0.8.so.1.0.0 > W: ClanLib-devel dangling-relative-symlink > /usr/lib/ClanLib-0.8/libclanMikMod.so > ../libclanMikMod-0.8.so.1.0.0 > W: ClanLib-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/ClanLib-0.8/libclanCore.so > ../libclanCore-0.8.so.1.0.0 > W: ClanLib-devel dangling-relative-symlink > /usr/lib/ClanLib-0.8/libclanSignals.so ../libclanSignals-0.8.so.1.0.0 > W: ClanLib-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/ClanLib-0.8/libclanApp.so > ../libclanApp-0.8.so.1.0.0 > W: ClanLib-devel dangling-relative-symlink > /usr/lib/ClanLib-0.8/libclanDisplay.so ../libclanDisplay-0.8.so.1.0.0 > W: ClanLib-devel dangling-relative-symlink > /usr/lib/ClanLib-0.8/libclanSound.so > ../libclanSound-0.8.so.1.0.0 > W: ClanLib-devel file-not-utf8 > /usr/share/doc/ClanLib-devel-0.8.0/html/Tutorial/TicTacToe/tictactoe.zip > W: ClanLib-devel dangling-relative-symlink > /usr/lib/ClanLib-0.8/libclanVorbis.so > ../libclanVorbis-0.8.so.1.0.0 > W: ClanLib-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/ClanLib-0.8/libclanSDL.so > ../libclanSDL-0.8.so.1.0.0 All of which can be ignored. Those links point to library files in the required main package. For some reason rpmlint only ignores broken symlinks in a -devel package directly under libdir and not under a subdir of libdir. -- 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 [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
