Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #13 from Ramon de C Valle ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #12 from Michael Schwendt ---
Then I'll silently wait for public activity/progress in this ticket and add my
comments.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #11 from Ramon de C Valle ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> > Or maybe you're contradicting yourself or not being clear enough.
>
> Not at all. Eric will be able to explain it to you, because it is his review
> you misu
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #10 from Michael Schwendt ---
> Or maybe you're contradicting yourself or not being clear enough.
Not at all. Eric will be able to explain it to you, because it is his review
you misunderstood to begin with.
> "...i
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #9 from Ramon de C Valle ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> > And even before I updated it, none of the resulting packages were empty.
>
> You still misunderstand it then.
Or maybe you're contradicting yourself or not bei
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt ---
> And even before I updated it, none of the resulting packages were empty.
You still misunderstand it then.
> Just type "A".
Interactive builds are not acceptable.
> Can you enumerate
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #7 from Ramon de C Valle ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> That can only be because you misunderstand Eric's review in comment 1 and my
> comment 2.
>
> More slowly then, okay. From comment 1, where fedora-review reporte
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
Michael Schwendt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mschwe...@gmail.com
-
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #5 from Ramon de C Valle ---
I don't see any empty packages in your demo.
(In reply to comment #4)
> $ rpmls -p libdistorm-devel-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/distorm.h
> -rw-r--r-- /usr/include/m
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt ---
$ rpmls -p libdistorm-devel-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
-rw-r--r-- /usr/include/distorm.h
-rw-r--r-- /usr/include/mnemonics.h
$ rpmls -p libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
-rwxr-xr-x /usr/lib
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #3 from Ramon de C Valle ---
Actually not, because my files section was (*.so, and not *.so.*):
%files
%doc
%{_libdir}/*.so
(In reply to comment #2)
> > [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage,
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt ---
> [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
Did you notice that the main package would be empty the
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #1 from Eric "Sparks" Christensne ---
A few items need to be taken care of here. I'll finish the review when the
failures have been addressed.
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not appl
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
Eric "Sparks" Christensne changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||spa...@redhat
14 matches
Mail list logo
