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=566560 --- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt <mschwe...@gmail.com> 2010-02-18 18:57:57 EST --- > Version: 290409 Their scheme appears to be %d-%m-%y, which looks fragile. What would happen if they released the next update on 7th of October? 071009 < 290409 > -shared -Wl,-soname,libaesgm.so.0.0 Is the double-zero intentional? $ rpmls -p libaesgm-290409-1.fc12.i686.rpm |grep /usr/lib lrwxrwxrwx /usr/lib/libaesgm.so.0 lrwxrwxrwx /usr/lib/libaesgm.so.0.0 -rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib/libaesgm.so.0.0.0 * There is no default %clean section yet to "rm -rf %buildroot". * A proper namespace for the header files would be better than generic names such as /usr/include/aes.h, e.g. installing into %_includedir/aesgm or %_includedir/libaesgm -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
