Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: binutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225615 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-06 10:39 EST ------- rpmlint on srpm: binutils.src:20: W: prereq-use /sbin/install-info The use of PreReq is deprecated. In the majority of cases, a plain Requires is enough and the right thing to do. Sometimes Requires(pre), Requires(post), Requires(preun) and/or Requires(postun) can also be used instead of PreReq. Fix. binutils.src:22: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes gnupro The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if possible. Fix if possible. binutils.src:47: W: prereq-use /sbin/install-info The use of PreReq is deprecated. In the majority of cases, a plain Requires is enough and the right thing to do. Sometimes Requires(pre), Requires(post), Requires(preun) and/or Requires(postun) can also be used instead of PreReq. binutils.src:303: W: macro-in-%changelog _prefix Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. binutils.src:745: W: macro-in-%changelog _prefix Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. Fix. binutils.src: W: %ifarch-applied-patch Patch4: binutils-2.18.50.0.3-ia64-lib64.p atch A patch is applied inside an %ifarch block. Patches must be applied on all architectures and may contain necessary configure and/or code patch to be effective only on a given arch. Not a problem. binutils.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot A GNU collection of binary utilities. Summary ends with a dot. Fix. rpmlint on rpms is clean other than the above. Why are the .a files not in a -static package? What would be the ramifications of correcting this? Otherwise, looks good, no other blockers. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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
