https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871037

--- Comment #5 from Ivan Romanov <dr...@land.ru> ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> First, I notice that the configure output shows some things missing that
> actually do exist in Fedora.  These *could* be added as BuildRequires,
> although I recognize you may have reasons for not wishing to do so:
> libguess-devel, db4-devel, libtranslate-devel, aspell.
I will think about this. Before I need more knowledges about this posibilites.
So I built a library with only thats requires which I enough good understand.

> Second, there is a compiler warning that probably should not be ignored:
> 
> rccstring.c: In function 'rccStringFixID':
> rccstring.c:67:44: warning: array subscript is above array bounds
> [-Warray-bound
> s]
> 
> This warning points to an off-by-one error.  This line:
> 
> memcpy(lang, header->language, 2); lang[3] = 0;
> 
> should really be this:
> 
> memcpy(lang, header->language, 2); lang[2] = 0;
Thanks! I will forward this to upstream.

> Third, the unused direct shared library dependency warnings from rpmlint can
> be eliminated by adding this to the %configure line:
> LDFLAGS="-Wl,--as-needed $RPM_LD_FLAGS".
Hm...

> Fourth, another option for the Source0 download URL is Source0:
> http://downloads.sourceforge.net/rusxmms/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 (see
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net).  (I'm
> not saying you have to switch, just that sourceforge is a known quantity
> when it comes to downloads.)
Sourceforge hasn't librcc-0.2.9.tar.gz so I use dside.dyndns.org.
I will request to an author to use sourceforge for all sources.

> [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
In really the author allready known about this and he promised to update librcc
on the next week.

-- 
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

Reply via email to