[Bug 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
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=429435 Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #22 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2009-01-08 07:49:29 EDT --- The issue discussed above was fixed by moving the library, given a consensus was reached by developers on #fedora-devel which were presented this bug, that made me confident using libdir is a more correct solution to the problem than rpath. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
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=429435 Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl --- Comment #17 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl 2008-12-29 06:15:14 EDT --- This package doesn't work in Rawhide (possibly also other Fedora versions). $ ldd /usr/lib64/nautilus/extensions-1.0/libnautilus-gnubversion.so linux-vdso.so.1 = (0x7fff861fe000) libgnubversion.so.0 = not found libc.so.6 = /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00315000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00363ce0) $ locate libgnubversion.so.0 /usr/lib64/gnubversion/libgnubversion.so.0 /usr/lib64/gnubversion/libgnubversion.so.0.0.0 I think this is caused by the rpath hack which is performed in the .spec file. Without using the rpath, the dynamic linker doesn't know where to find the library libgnubversion.so.0 (as it is in a non-standard path). To work around this, users have to add '/usr/lib64/gnubversion' to /etc/ld.so.conf and re-run /sbin/ldconfig, but such a thing shouldn't be necessary for regular users. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
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=429435 --- Comment #18 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2008-12-29 07:23:05 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17) /usr/lib64/gnubversion/libgnubversion.so.0 /usr/lib64/gnubversion/libgnubversion.so.0.0.0 Whoops, this is something I probably overlooked. (In reply to comment #9) gvn-checkout: error while loading shared libraries: libgnubversion.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory Hm...you no need to move them to _libdir. once this package is installed, you have to restart your X environment to update nautilus. perhaps your ldconfig needs to be update as well. Currently works fine on mine without move any lib to _lidir. I'll chroot another one to check closer this issue. You're wrong here. The libgnubversion.so.0 really needs to go to _libdir, unlike libnautilus-gnubversion.so, which should stay in nautilus extension directory. Please move it. Thanks! -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
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=429435
--- Comment #19 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-29
10:21:31 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #18)
(In reply to comment #9)
gvn-checkout: error while loading shared libraries: libgnubversion.so.0:
cannot
open shared object file: No such file or directory
Hm...you no need to move them to _libdir.
once this package is installed, you have to restart your X environment to
update
nautilus. perhaps your ldconfig needs to be update as well.
Currently works fine on mine without move any lib to _lidir. I'll chroot
another
one to check closer this issue.
You're wrong here. The libgnubversion.so.0 really needs to go to _libdir,
unlike
libnautilus-gnubversion.so, which should stay in nautilus extension directory.
Please move it. Thanks!
Well, no. It can be guessed that the fact that this software
(or the upstream) tries to install libgnubversion.so.0 under %_libdir/%name
means that this software should work (at least for the upstream)
without moving the library into %_libdir (well, there are not a few
cases in which upstream make mistakes, however this is not
the case).
The culprit is the following lines.
--
#Remove Rpath
sed -i 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=\\${wl}--rpath
\\${wl}\\$libdir|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=|g' libtool
sed -i 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' libtool
---
Well, I see these lines in many spec files, however this method
removes _all_ rpaths, which sometimes makes the software
unusable like this case and bug 432468.
The unneeded rpath _only_ should be removed
(on x86_64 it is /usr/lib64, on i386 there is nothing on this package) and
%_libdir/%name rpath should be preserved, and libgnubversion.so.0
should not be moved to %_libdir. Refer to anjuta spec file about
how to deal with this for example.
--
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@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
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=429435
--- Comment #20 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk 2008-12-29 11:50:40 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #19)
You're wrong here. The libgnubversion.so.0 really needs to go to _libdir,
unlike
libnautilus-gnubversion.so, which should stay in nautilus extension
directory.
Please move it. Thanks!
Well, no. It can be guessed that the fact that this software
(or the upstream) tries to install libgnubversion.so.0 under %_libdir/%name
means that this software should work (at least for the upstream)
without moving the library into %_libdir (well, there are not a few
cases in which upstream make mistakes, however this is not
the case).
The culprit is the following lines.
--
#Remove Rpath
sed -i 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=\\${wl}--rpath
\\${wl}\\$libdir|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=|g' libtool
sed -i 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' libtool
---
Well, I see these lines in many spec files, however this method
removes _all_ rpaths, which sometimes makes the software
unusable like this case and bug 432468.
The unneeded rpath _only_ should be removed
(on x86_64 it is /usr/lib64, on i386 there is nothing on this package) and
%_libdir/%name rpath should be preserved, and libgnubversion.so.0
should not be moved to %_libdir. Refer to anjuta spec file about
how to deal with this for example.
I still tend to disagree. There's really no good reason for that library not
being in libdir. Well, upstream does that, but that's a pretty bad excuse for
using RPATH, though a good reason for a bug report 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@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
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=429435 --- Comment #21 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-29 15:32:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #20) I still tend to disagree. There's really no good reason for that library not being in libdir. Well, upstream does that, but that's a pretty bad excuse for using RPATH, though a good reason for a bug report upstream. There is no need to install libraries only used by the software to system-wide library directory. Such files should be installed under its software specific directory (usually %_libdir/%name) to avoid name space pollution as much as possible. If upstream intends to make the library also used by other applications (with providing header files for API, for example), such file must be installed to system wide library directory. Otherwise it is better to hide files into software specific directories if possible. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
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: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429435 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-29 04:03 EST --- Thanks, New Package Request = Name: gnubversion Short Description: Gnome interface to Subversion Owners: laxathom Branch: F-8 F-9 InitialCC: -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
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: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429435 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-29 11:39 EST --- cvs done. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
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: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429435
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-28 11:16 EST ---
Thanks for the package, Xavier.
Three things, all of them fairly trivial (and optional -- you may want to choose
to address them before commiting), so they won't block the approval. I'll
approve this once this builds in mock for me and inc case no more issues arise.
1.) Vendor tag
desktop-file-install\
--vendor \
You probably want to set Vendor to fedora as per [1] (given this is a new
package it won't break the updates).
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files
2.) Encoding key
#Fix .desktop file
echo Encoding=UTF-8
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/gvn-checkout.desktop
Actually the comment here is misleading. The Encoding key is in fact deprecated
[2]. This seems useless -- older desktop-file-utils implementations just issue a
warning here, not breaking the build (unless I am mistaken...).
[2]
http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/desktop-entry-spec-latest.html
3.) A typo in changelog
* Sun Jul 27 2008 Xavier Lamien lxtnow[at]gmail.com - 0.5-3
You may want a character after your e-mail address.
--
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, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
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: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429435 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-28 11:37 EST --- Does not build in el5. Trying fc10. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
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: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429435 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-28 12:53 EST --- Built fine. Rpmlint is silent. SPEC file is clean and legible. Filelist is sane. Provides and requires are ok. Proper compiler flags are used. APPROVED -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
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: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429435 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-27 03:37 EST --- delayed pong ! Spec : http://laxathom.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/gnubversion/gnubversion.spec SRPM : http://laxathom.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/gnubversion/gnubversion-0.5-3.fc9.src.rpm -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
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: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429435 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
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: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429435 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-23 21:25 EST --- Ping? -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
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: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429435 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-01-27 07:24 EST --- So now I use gnome and I checked this package. The package built fine, but didn't work: gvn-checkout: error while loading shared libraries: libgnubversion.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory I moved library from %_libdir/gnubversion to %_libdir and now is ok. In other way you should remove libglade2-devel gnome-vfs2-devel and apr-devel because there are unnecessary. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
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: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429435 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-01-27 12:02 EST --- gvn-checkout: error while loading shared libraries: libgnubversion.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory Hm...you no need to move them to _libdir. once this package is installed, you have to restart your X environment to update nautilus. perhaps your ldconfig needs to be update as well. Currently works fine on mine without move any lib to _lidir. I'll chroot another one to check closer this issue. Removed redundnat BR, updated release will follow. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
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: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429435 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-01-23 17:17 EST --- The spec looks clearly. All package looks nice. I can't try this package, because I use KDE. Rpmlint warns: gnubversion.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 14). -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
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: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429435 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-01-20 04:04 EST --- from comment #1 : The *.so are nautilus extension plugins, they are nothing to do in an -devel package ;) From comment #2 : hm...that should be done, could you check the spec shipped with srpm ? -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
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: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429435 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-01-20 05:47 EST --- (In reply to comment #3) from comment #1 : The *.so are nautilus extension plugins, they are nothing to do in an -devel package ;) OK. From comment #2 : hm...that should be done, could you check the spec shipped with srpm ? Yup already checked SPEC built in SRPM from comment #1 and found no use of icon cache scriptlet. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
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: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429435 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-01-20 06:55 EST --- Rebuilt, Spec URL: http://laxathom.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/gnubversion/gnubversion.spec SRPM URL: http://laxathom.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/gnubversion/gnubversion-0.5-1.fc8.src.rpm -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
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: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429435 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-01-20 06:56 EST --- Rebuilt, Spec URL: http://laxathom.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/gnubversion/gnubversion.spec SRPM URL: http://laxathom.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/gnubversion/gnubversion-0.5-2.fc8.src.rpm -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
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: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429435 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
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: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429435 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-01-19 23:12 EST --- - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 429435] Review Request: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion
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: gnubversion - Gnome interface to Subversion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429435 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-01-19 23:17 EST --- missing gtk-update-icon-cache scriptlet usage http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#head-7103f6c38d1b5735e8477bdd569ad73ea2c49bda -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
