[Bug 601577] Review Request: lockfile - This library implements a number of functions found in -lmail on SysV systems

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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 <opensource at till.name> 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.