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: elektra https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-30 06:18 EST ------- > I did this on spec: > rm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_lib}/libelektra.so > ln -sf ../../%{_lib}/libelektra.so.2 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/libelektra.so > > Any suggestion for a cleaner way without hardcoding the lib version ? ln -sf ../../%{_lib}/libelektra.so.? $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/libelektra.so > Most warnings are due to some bug in the build system claiming "warning: > implicit declaration of function 'usleep'". They are sort of fake, and will > be > fixed. Wha do you mean by "They are sort of fake"? I had a look at the code, and indeed in keyset.c usleep is used although there is no #include <unistd.h> (maybe conditionalized on HAVE_UNISTD_H, with AC_CHECK_HEADERS(unistd.h)) As a side note, in case you weren't aware, in the usleep man page, there is: This function is obsolete. Use nanosleep(2) or setitimer(2) instead. Anyway I don't have any other comments. I believe the package is in shape now, so now you should look for a sponsor who accepts the dlopened libs in /lib and the header files directly in /usr/include... Or be prepared to fix those issues. To look for a sponsor, the best is to show that you have enough knowledge of the packaging guidelines to have CVS access granted to you, and the best for that is to participate in other packages reviews, by comenting and sending patches for specfiles. -- 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
