[Bug 194353] Review Request: gdk-pixbuf

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Jun 19 19:55:44 UTC 2006


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: gdk-pixbuf


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194353


kevin at tummy.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778                      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2006-06-19 15:47 EST -------
Sure, I can take a look at imlib later today. 

Re static libs, see: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines?#head-2302ec1e1f44202c9cc4bcce24cb711266557ad7

If some app static links to this package and there is a security update
it will be vulnerable until it's rebuilt against the updated package. 

I would say to exclude them unless you know of a specific need for them. 
If there is a specific need, you might add a note on it to the spec file. 

For rpmlint now we have: 

can be ignored: 

W: gdk-pixbuf-devel no-documentation
W: gdk-pixbuf-gnome no-documentation

might remove the trailing . on the -gnome subpackage summary?

W: gdk-pixbuf-gnome summary-ended-with-dot GnomeCanvas support for displaying
images.

might remove the Patch4 and Patch9 now that they are not used?

W: gdk-pixbuf patch-not-applied Patch4: gdk-pixbuf-0.22.0-libtool15.patch
W: gdk-pixbuf patch-not-applied Patch9: gdk-pixbuf-0.22.0-nognome.patch

All those are minor issues and not blockers, so this package is APPROVED. 
Don't forget to close this bug as NEXTRELEASE once the package is imported and
built.

-- 
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 Fedora-package-review mailing list