[Bug 188542] Review Request: hylafax

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Jul 2 00:32:48 UTC 2007


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: hylafax


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542





------- Additional Comments From fedora at christoph-wickert.de  2007-07-01 20:32 EST -------
Ok, lets talk about the errors that need to be fixed upstream first:

E: hylafax binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/faxalter ['/usr/lib64']:
Same for all other binaries. This is a no-go for fedora, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-a1dfb5f46bf4098841e31a75d833e6e1b3e72544
Although we could fix this in the spec I think it should be done properly upstream.

E: hylafax subdir-in-bin /usr/sbin/faxmail
Same for the subdirs of /usr/sbin/faxmail. IMO a no-go to because it is a
violation of the FHS. Should be in /usr/lib/ I guess.

E: hylafax invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libfaxserver.so.5.0.4 libfaxserver.so
E: hylafax invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libfaxutil.so.5.0.4 libfaxutil.so
this is related to
W: hylafax devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libfaxserver.so
W: hylafax devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libfaxutil.so
I brought this up on fedora-extras-list back in October 2006, see
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-October/msg00496.html
and especially Michaels mails
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-October/msg00505.html
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-October/msg00508.html

W: hylafax undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libfaxserver.so.5.0.4
_Z11vlogWarningPKcP13__va_list_tag
Much more undefined symbols, need to be fixed too.

W: hylafax unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libfaxserver.so.5.0.4
/lib64/libcrypt.so.1
Same for a couple more libs and same with libfaxutil too.

Sorry, I did not have the time to look into the spec more deeply today, but I
think we should focus on fixing these first because the packaging bugs are easier.

If you have a questions about a specific rpmlint error, run "rpmlint -I <error>".

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.




More information about the package-review mailing list