[Bug 601577] Review Request: lockfile - This library implements a number of functions found in -lmail on SysV systems
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=601577 --- Comment #22 from Matthias Runge 2010-08-06 07:39:47 EDT --- This sounds sane to me, it fits really better this way. If Pavel does not complain, I'll rename. The files section now lists each file explicit, files go to main and -devel subpackage, as Till mentioned. SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/liblockfile-1.08-8.fc13.src.rpm SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/liblockfile.spec -- 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
[Bug 601577] Review Request: lockfile - This library implements a number of functions found in -lmail on SysV systems
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=601577
--- Comment #21 from Till Maas 2010-08-06 06:43:32 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #20)
> OK, as Till suggested, the missing link gets created from spec.
>
> -devel-subpackage requires the main package; main package contains COPYRIGHT
> etc.
>
>
> lockfile builds just one library (liblockfile.so)
> a link is generated to liblockfile.so.1.0 and a link to liblockfile.so.1
Actually the lib is liblockfile.so.1.0 and the two other files are symlinks.
> If I understand the packaging guide correctly,
> lockfile.so should go to -devel subpackage
> and versioned libs should go to -libs.
>
> The -libs-subpackage would contain only 2 links to lockfile.so
> and should require -devel subpackage. This wouldn't make sense.
>
> Where should I place liblockfile and its links?
> Currently, they are packed in -devel
Since the library seems to be build now properly, the package should be named
back to "liblockfile", the liblockfile.so.1.0 file, the liblockfile.so.1
symlink, the binary and the man1 manpage(s) go into the main package. The .so
symlink, the man3 manpage(s) and the header files into the devel package.
Some more remarks:
- you can just use mkdir instead of %{__mkdir}
- %{__mkdir} -p %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/debug should not be needed
- the spec is more readable if you do not use just plain globbings like
"%{_bindir}/*" but use one entry for each binary. This way you will also catch
changes there. For the manpages it is helpful to use "*" instead of ".gz" as a
suffix, because the manpages might be compressed somehow else in the future.
--
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
[Bug 601577] Review Request: lockfile - This library implements a number of functions found in -lmail on SysV systems
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=601577
--- Comment #20 from Matthias Runge 2010-08-06
06:21:14 EDT ---
OK, as Till suggested, the missing link gets created from spec.
-devel-subpackage requires the main package; main package contains COPYRIGHT
etc.
lockfile builds just one library (liblockfile.so)
a link is generated to liblockfile.so.1.0 and a link to liblockfile.so.1
If I understand the packaging guide correctly,
lockfile.so should go to -devel subpackage
and versioned libs should go to -libs.
The -libs-subpackage would contain only 2 links to lockfile.so
and should require -devel subpackage. This wouldn't make sense.
Where should I place liblockfile and its links?
Currently, they are packed in -devel
rpm -qpvl ../RPMS/i686/lockfile-devel-1.08-7.fc13.i686.rpm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1469 Aug 6 12:05
/usr/include/lockfile.h
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 878 Aug 6 12:05
/usr/include/maillock.h
lrwxrwxrwx1 rootroot 18 Aug 6 12:05
/usr/lib/liblockfile.so -> liblockfile.so.1.0
lrwxrwxrwx1 rootroot 27 Aug 6 12:05
/usr/lib/liblockfile.so.1 -> /usr/lib/liblockfile.so.1.0
-rwxr-xr-x1 rootroot 7736 Aug 6 12:05
/usr/lib/liblockfile.so.1.0
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2960 Aug 6 12:05
/usr/share/man/man3/lockfile_create.3.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1234 Aug 6 12:05
/usr/share/man/man3/maillock.3.gz
---
diff -u
--- lockfile.spec-6 2010-08-06 10:46:39.0 +0200
+++ lockfile.spec 2010-08-06 12:04:11.0 +0200
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: lockfile
Version:1.08
-Release:6%{?dist}
+Release:7%{?dist}
Summary:This implements a number of functions found in -lmail on SysV
systems
Group: Applications/System
@@ -33,8 +33,6 @@
# remove -g root from install
sed -i "s/install -g root -m 755 dotlockfile \$(ROOT)\$(bindir);/install -m
755 dotlockfile \$(ROOT)\$(bindir);/" Makefile.in
-# remove link-creation from Makefile (to be done later during install)
-sed -i "s/ln -s liblockfile.so.\$(VER) \$(ROOT)\$(libdir)\/liblockfile.so//"
Makefile.in
%build
%configure --enable-shared
@@ -52,7 +50,6 @@
make ROOT=%{buildroot} install_shared
# create links for ldconfig
-ln -s %{_libdir}/liblockfile.so.1.0 %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/liblockfile.so
ln -s %{_libdir}/liblockfile.so.1.0 %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/liblockfile.so.1
%clean
@@ -75,10 +72,13 @@
%{_libdir}/*.so*
%{_includedir}/*
%{_mandir}/man3/*
-%doc COPYRIGHT
%changelog
+* Fri Aug 6 2010 Matthias Runge 1.08-7
+- remove COPYRIGHT from devel
+- just fix one missing link from upstream
+
* Thu Aug 5 2010 Matthias Runge 1.08-6
- include COPYRIGHT in -devel, too
- remove unnecessary exclude
--
[mru...@mrungexp SPECS]$ rpmlint
/home/mrunge/rpmbuild/SRPMS/lockfile-1.08-7.fc13.src.rpm
/home/mrunge/rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/lockfile-1.08-7.fc13.i686.rpm
/home/mrunge/rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/lockfile-devel-1.08-7.fc13.i686.rpm
/home/mrunge/rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/lockfile-debuginfo-1.08-7.fc13.i686.rpm
lockfile.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lmail -> mail, email, l mail
lockfile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lmail -> mail, email, l
mail
lockfile.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lmail -> mail, email, l mail
lockfile.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lmail -> mail, email, l
mail
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/lockfile.spec
SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/lockfile-1.08-7.fc13.src.rpm
--
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
[Bug 601577] Review Request: lockfile - This library implements a number of functions found in -lmail on SysV systems
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=601577
--- Comment #19 from Till Maas 2010-08-06 03:48:25 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #17)
> (In reply to comment #15)
> > Also the file COPYRIGHT needs to be included in both packages (the main
> > package
> > and the devel subpackage) since a recent policy change.
> It is not needed, if one package require other what have it. In -devel must
> require main package with version. I have wrote about it before.
Yes, I forgot about that. But iirc previously the COPYRIGHT file was only in
the devel subpackage, but it needs to be in the main package.
(In reply to comment #16)
> (In reply to comment #15)
> > (In reply to comment #14)
> > > After a minimal change (creating %{_lib}/debug in buildroot), lockfile
> > > builds
> > > fine in koji.
> >
> > I guess the build error came from this line in the devel subpackage files
> > section:
> > %exclude %{_libdir}/debug/
> I'm not sure about this. Those two lines from koji build.log:
> extracting debug info from
> /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/lockfile-1.08-5.fc13.x86_64/usr/bin/dotlockfile
> symlinked /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/liblockfile.so.1.0.debug to
> /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/liblockfile.so.debug
>
> look some strange to me. I could not figure out, why this happens. Anyway,
> it's
> fixed in actual version.
What is strange there? The debuginfo creation usually works without problems.
> > Why do you do this in %install:
> > ln -s %{_libdir}/liblockfile.so.1.0 %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/liblockfile.so
> > ln -s %{_libdir}/liblockfile.so.1.0 %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/liblockfile.so.1
> >
> > and remove at least one of these commands from Makefile.in in %prep?
> > liblockfile.so.\$(VER) \$(ROOT)\$(libdir)\/liblockfile.so//" Makefile.in
> > file.in in %prep?
> In Makefile.in is only one link included. I tried to keep them both together.
> Another solution would change Makefile to include the corresponding other
> link.
> Do you think, it's should go there?
It should be reported upstream and in the meantime it is ok to create the
missing symlink in the spec, but the correct one should just stay in
Makefile.in.
--
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
[Bug 601577] Review Request: lockfile - This library implements a number of functions found in -lmail on SysV systems
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=601577 --- Comment #18 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) 2010-08-06 03:31:35 EDT --- In last package I don't see any libraries now. Is it normal? Why you remove -libs subpackage? -- 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
[Bug 601577] Review Request: lockfile - This library implements a number of functions found in -lmail on SysV systems
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=601577 --- Comment #17 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) 2010-08-06 03:20:40 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) > Also the file COPYRIGHT needs to be included in both packages (the main > package > and the devel subpackage) since a recent policy change. It is not needed, if one package require other what have it. In -devel must require main package with version. I have wrote about it before. -- 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
[Bug 601577] Review Request: lockfile - This library implements a number of functions found in -lmail on SysV systems
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=601577
--- Comment #16 from Matthias Runge 2010-08-05
03:00:42 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #14)
> > After a minimal change (creating %{_lib}/debug in buildroot), lockfile
> > builds
> > fine in koji.
>
> I guess the build error came from this line in the devel subpackage files
> section:
> %exclude %{_libdir}/debug/
I'm not sure about this. Those two lines from koji build.log:
extracting debug info from
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/lockfile-1.08-5.fc13.x86_64/usr/bin/dotlockfile
symlinked /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/liblockfile.so.1.0.debug to
/usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/liblockfile.so.debug
look some strange to me. I could not figure out, why this happens. Anyway, it's
fixed in actual version.
>
> Why is it there in the first place?
>
It's removed now; in an older version of this package was debuginfo included in
a hidden path.
> Also the file COPYRIGHT needs to be included in both packages (the main
> package
> and the devel subpackage) since a recent policy change.
fixed.
>
> Why do you do this in %install:
> ln -s %{_libdir}/liblockfile.so.1.0 %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/liblockfile.so
> ln -s %{_libdir}/liblockfile.so.1.0 %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/liblockfile.so.1
>
> and remove at least one of these commands from Makefile.in in %prep?
> liblockfile.so.\$(VER) \$(ROOT)\$(libdir)\/liblockfile.so//" Makefile.in
> file.in in %prep?
In Makefile.in is only one link included. I tried to keep them both together.
Another solution would change Makefile to include the corresponding other link.
Do you think, it's should go there?
diff -u:
--- lockfile.spec-5 2010-08-05 08:36:31.0 +0200
+++ lockfile.spec 2010-08-05 08:55:46.0 +0200
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: lockfile
Version:1.08
-Release:5%{?dist}
+Release:6%{?dist}
Summary:This implements a number of functions found in -lmail on SysV
systems
Group: Applications/System
@@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
# remove -g root from install
sed -i "s/install -g root -m 755 dotlockfile \$(ROOT)\$(bindir);/install -m
755 dotlockfile \$(ROOT)\$(bindir);/" Makefile.in
+# remove link-creation from Makefile (to be done later during install)
sed -i "s/ln -s liblockfile.so.\$(VER) \$(ROOT)\$(libdir)\/liblockfile.so//"
Makefile.in
%build
@@ -49,6 +50,8 @@
%{__mkdir} -p %{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man1
%{__mkdir} -p %{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man3
make ROOT=%{buildroot} install_shared
+
+# create links for ldconfig
ln -s %{_libdir}/liblockfile.so.1.0 %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/liblockfile.so
ln -s %{_libdir}/liblockfile.so.1.0 %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/liblockfile.so.1
@@ -75,10 +78,11 @@
%doc COPYRIGHT
-
%changelog
* Thu Aug 5 2010 Matthias Runge 1.08-6
+- include COPYRIGHT in -devel, too
+- remove unnecessary exclude
+
* Tue Aug 3 2010 Matthias Runge 1.08-5
- fix shared lib warning, sort lib to devel
Fixed versions are:
SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/lockfile.spec
SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/lockfile-1.08-6.fc13.src.rpm
--
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
[Bug 601577] Review Request: lockfile - This library implements a number of functions found in -lmail on SysV systems
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=601577
--- Comment #15 from Till Maas 2010-08-04 08:08:59 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #14)
> After a minimal change (creating %{_lib}/debug in buildroot), lockfile builds
> fine in koji.
I guess the build error came from this line in the devel subpackage files
section:
%exclude %{_libdir}/debug/
Why is it there in the first place?
Also the file COPYRIGHT needs to be included in both packages (the main package
and the devel subpackage) since a recent policy change.
Why do you do this in %install:
ln -s %{_libdir}/liblockfile.so.1.0 %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/liblockfile.so
ln -s %{_libdir}/liblockfile.so.1.0 %{buildroot}/%{_libdir}/liblockfile.so.1
and remove at least one of these commands from Makefile.in in %prep?
liblockfile.so.\$(VER) \$(ROOT)\$(libdir)\/liblockfile.so//" Makefile.in
file.in in %prep?
--
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
[Bug 601577] Review Request: lockfile - This library implements a number of functions found in -lmail on SysV systems
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=601577
--- Comment #14 from Matthias Runge 2010-08-04
03:47:01 EDT ---
After a minimal change (creating %{_lib}/debug in buildroot), lockfile builds
fine in koji.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2378562 (for F13),
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2378565 (for F12)
--
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
[Bug 601577] Review Request: lockfile - This library implements a number of functions found in -lmail on SysV systems
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=601577 --- Comment #13 from Matthias Runge 2010-08-03 16:33:23 EDT --- Thank you for your answers. Finally, I was able to fix both errors. I chose to use GPLv2+ as license. rpmlint stays silent, except of those spelling warnings mru...@sofja SPECS]$ rpmlint -i ../SRPMS/lockfile-1.08-5.fc13.src.rpm ../RPMS/i686/lockfile-devel-1.08-5.fc13.i686.rpm ../RPMS/i686/lockfile-1.08-5.fc13.i686.rpm lockfile.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lmail -> mail, email, l mail The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. lockfile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lmail -> mail, email, l mail The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. lockfile.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lmail -> mail, email, l mail The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. lockfile.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lmail -> mail, email, l mail The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Sadly, this package does not build for x86_64 in koji (F12, F13) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2377548 I'll inspect this tomorrow. SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/lockfile.spec SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/lockfile-1.08-5.fc13.src.rpm -- 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
[Bug 601577] Review Request: lockfile - This library implements a number of functions found in -lmail on SysV systems
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=601577 --- Comment #12 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) 2010-08-03 09:27:21 EDT --- With help of my friend (thank you Peter) and tries, I found what error no-ldconfig-symlink happened because there no symlink /usr/lib/liblockfile.so.1 to /usr/lib/liblockfile.so.1.0 -- 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
[Bug 601577] Review Request: lockfile - This library implements a number of functions found in -lmail on SysV systems
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=601577 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #11 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) 2010-08-03 09:22:50 EDT --- If we don't known exact license, I think we should use most restrictive, in our case GPLv2+. If you are doubt, you can fire FELegal flag to get clarification from Spot. /usr/lib/liblockfile.so (without number) is devel file and must go to the appropriate sub-package. Hm, now I see Library, occasionally it did not produced in Fedora 11, where I did try it build before. New package even not build. On Fedora 13 build fine. Compilation done with command: gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -Wall -D_GNU_SOURCE -I. -DLIB -DLOCKPROG=\"/usr/bin/dotlockfile\" \ -c lockfile.c As you can see there no -fPIC flag. You have choose patch make scripts (and set it upstream), or try add it to CFLAGS environment with comment. Libs and devel sub-packages should require versioned main package. I also do not understand error no-ldconfig-symlink :( . I try ask friends. -- 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
[Bug 601577] Review Request: lockfile - This library implements a number of functions found in -lmail on SysV systems
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=601577 --- Comment #10 from Matthias Runge 2010-07-29 07:40:36 EDT --- nevermind. Sadly, I didn't get any answer from upstream yet. Wouldn't it be possible to do a dual license: LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+ (should it be and?) As you have seen, I renamed the package to lockfile and created a -libs subpackage. Looking deeper into the library.thing, I found out, the lib was created statically. This is fixed now. mru...@sofja SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/i686/lockfile-1.08-4.fc13.i686.rpm ../RPMS/i686/lockfile-devel-1.08-4.fc13.i686.rpm ../RPMS/i686/lockfile-debuginfo-1.08-4.fc13.i686.rpm ../RPMS/i686/lockfile-libs-1.08-4.fc13.i686.rpm lockfile.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) lmail -> mail, email, l mail lockfile.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lmail -> mail, email, l mail lockfile-libs.i686: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib/liblockfile.so.1.0 lockfile-libs.i686: E: shlib-with-non-pic-code /usr/lib/liblockfile.so.1.0 lockfile-libs.i686: W: no-documentation lockfile-libs.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/liblockfile.so 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. sadly, rpmlint complains about two errors; both of them I cannot understand. I provide a symlink and an ldconfig-call. Can you give me a hint? The second error is strange to me, too, because lib is built with the -fPIC compile-option. Fixed SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/lockfile.spec SRPM: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/lockfile-1.08-4.fc13.src.rpm -- 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
[Bug 601577] Review Request: lockfile - This library implements a number of functions found in -lmail on SysV systems
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=601577 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: liblockfile |Review Request: lockfile - |- This library implements a |This library implements a |number of functions found |number of functions found |in -lmail on SysV systems |in -lmail on SysV systems -- 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
