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=761619 --- Comment #2 from David Howells <dhowe...@redhat.com> 2011-12-22 05:23:00 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) > You've explained the dangling symlinks, and I think that's OK. Possibly I should just put all the manual page symlinks into the doc rpm, though I'd prefer them only to be installed if the things they're describing are present. > If you can arrange a man page for ld, that would be nice but it's not > mandatory. There are manual pages for ld. Do you mean ld.bfd? If so, there is no manual page specifically for that. I'm not entirely sure what the ld.bfd is for. > We'll have to check what the rules are for non-standard directories in /usr, I wonder if that's going to happen if I let it create, say, /usr/xtensa-linux-gnu/ instead of /usr/cross/xtensa-linux-gnu/. I wonder if these things should be in /usr/libexec. > and the cross-directory hard links. I missed that. Interesting... I wonder if the core binutils package does this too. Even though it's marked as a cross-dir hardlink, it isn't installed so (even though it could be). > Also: > cross-binutils.src:49: W: macro-in-comment %{version} That's a comment borrowed from the original binutils.spec. I should probably keep it as long as that does. > cross-binutils.src:138: W: macro-in-comment %ifarch > cross-binutils.src:139: W: macro-in-comment %if > cross-binutils.src:139: W: macro-in-comment %{_lib} > cross-binutils.src:140: W: macro-in-comment %patch03 > cross-binutils.src:141: W: macro-in-comment %endif > cross-binutils.src:142: W: macro-in-comment %endif I'm not sure whether I need this. I should find an IA64 box and try it. > cross-binutils.src:398: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} > cross-binutils.src:398: W: macro-in-comment %{_prefix} > cross-binutils.src:399: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} > cross-binutils.src:399: W: macro-in-comment %{_mandir} I should get rid of those. > cross-binutils.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch3: > binutils-2.20.51.0.2-ia64-lib64.patch That's one of the original binutils.spec patches and is related to the macro-in-comment warnings of lines 138-142. I wonder if I should just apply all of the original binutils.spec patches as applied by that? -- 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
