This is a patch against filelist-10.3 to verify that (parts of) the
proposed library packaging policy are followed. It's non-fatal right now
as nearly every package fails it :P
A few examples:
> ~/bin/filelist-10.3 /work/built/dists/all/x86_64/packs-x86_64/libelf
... checking filelist
libelf: "
Richard Guenther wrote:
> Can we enable this in BETA now and STABLE soon?
Can you add an option to disable this check in the spec file of selected
packages?
I maintain several packages, which don't work, if .so is packaged in
-devel subpackage.
--
Best Regards / S pozdravem,
Stanislav Brabec
On Tuesday, 3. April 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
> proposed library packaging policy are followed. It's non-fatal right now
> as nearly every package fails it :P
It is wrong, too. it shouldn't reject non-symlink .so files, or .so files
pointing to modules.
Dirk
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Dirk Mueller wrote:
> On Tuesday, 3. April 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > proposed library packaging policy are followed. It's non-fatal right now
> > as nearly every package fails it :P
>
> It is wrong, too. it shouldn't reject non-symlink .so files, or .so files
> po
On Tuesday, 3. April 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
> the filelist check for a better structured verification. Maybe a rpmlint
> check is better for now.
Might be a good idea, except that it is already done:
$ grep -rl "devel-file-in-non-devel" /mounts/dist/data/i386/lint | wc -l
681
Dirk
--
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Dirk Mueller wrote:
> On Tuesday, 3. April 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > the filelist check for a better structured verification. Maybe a rpmlint
> > check is better for now.
>
> Might be a good idea, except that it is already done:
>
> $ grep -rl "devel-file-in-non-
Richard Guenther escribió:
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Dirk Mueller wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 3. April 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>>> the filelist check for a better structured verification. Maybe a rpmlint
>>> check is better for now.
>> Might be a good idea, except that it is already done:
>>
>>
