[Bug 226023] Merge Review: libgsf
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Jul 19 12:10:28 UTC 2010
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=226023
--- Comment #2 from Caolan McNamara <caolanm at redhat.com> 2010-07-19 08:10:27 EDT ---
a) python subpackage does not require the mainpackage nor contains own COPYING*
files...
"If a subpackage is dependent ... implicitly ... upon a base package ... it is
not necessary for that subpackage to also include those license texts as %doc."
rpm -qlp RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep COP
/usr/share/doc/libgsf-1.14.18/COPYING
/usr/share/doc/libgsf-1.14.18/COPYING.LIB
rpm -qp --provides RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep libgsf
libgsf-1.so.114()(64bit)
libgsf = 1.14.18-2.fc14
libgsf(x86-64) = 1.14.18-2.fc14
rpm -qp --requires RPMS/x86_64/libgsf-python-1.14.18-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm |grep
libgsf
libgsf-1.so.114()(64bit)
libgsf-gnome-1.so.114()(64bit)
So its not necessary for libgsf-gnome to include a license text as it requires
implicitly libgsf whose package has a %doc. So I reckon that one is ok.
b) E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath
now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14
c) - I needed to use 'rm -rf ...
now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14
d) - Please use this macro from:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
now fixed as libgsf-1.14.18-3.fc14
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
More information about the package-review
mailing list