Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220381 Summary: Review Request: flex-old - Legacy version of flex, a tool for creating scanners Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,[EMAIL PROTECTED] Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~pmachata/flex-old.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~pmachata/flex-old-2.5.4a-1.src.rpm Description: We are preparing to get reentrant flex (2.5.33) into Fedora Core. After the discussion with notting, we settled down on a following scenario: * starting with FC7, the package flex will provide flex-2.5.33 * in addition, flex-old will be provided, holding 2.5.4 branch of flex * the two packages don't conflict, it's possible to install them side by side flex-old installs everything with the -old suffix, e.g. /usr/bin/flex-old, /usr/lib/libfl-old.a. Header file is in /usr/include/flex-old/FlexLexer.h, so that it's possible to request its inclusion via gcc's -I flag (dirs added with -I have precedence before system include directories). The output of rpmlint is as follows: $ rpmlint ../RPMS/i386/flex-old-2.5.4a-1.i386.rpm W: flex-old devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libfl-old.a W: flex-old devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/flex-old/FlexLexer.h flex is of course development package itself, so the warnings should be ignored. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
