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=597596 --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts <ti...@math.uh.edu> 2010-11-19 15:05:09 EST --- Just taking a look at some older review tickets. This one builds but fails to install: Error: Package: alsa-patch-bay-1.0.0-3.fc15.x86_64 (/alsa-patch-bay-1.0.0-3.fc15.x86_64) Requires: fltk.so.0 Any reason why you specify all of the library dependencies manually instead of letting rpm figure them out for you? You really should never need to do anything remotely like this: Requires: alsa.so.0 fltk.so.0 libasound.so.2 libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9) libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libdl.so.2 libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.0) libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.1) libfltk.so.1.1 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libm.so.6 libpthread.so.0 libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.0) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.1) libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9) rtld(GNU_HASH) rpm will happily figure out all of those (and, indeed, the currect ones) for itself. We don't usually usually ship libtool archives unless there's some specific reason to do so. Do things break if you remove the two .la files? -- 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
