[Bug 225856] Merge Review: gpm

[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=225856





--- Comment #9 from Zdenek Prikryl <zprikryl at redhat.com>  2009-01-20 03:58:54 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> You're currently adding "Requires: bash >= 2.0" to gpm package. Is this really
> needed? Bash < 2.0 existed before 1998 in Red Hat Linux - that was just before
> Red Hat Linux 5.2. If we still need it, please explain the need for it.

It seems that this requires isn't needed any more.

> Do we really need the static library? If yes, we need a -static subpackage. But
> personally, I don't see a need for a *.a file - can we remove it?

We need the static library. So, I added -static subpackage.

> I think, we can ignore macro-in-%changelog warnings, there's nothing which gets
> expanded here.

I changed % to %% so this warnings disappear.

> Do we really need to package the TODO file as %doc? That seems to be needed for
> upstream, not for downstream, yes? If we need it, we have to convert it to UTF8
> using e.g. the following:
> 
> iconv -f iso-8859-1 -t utf-8 -o TODO.utf8 TODO
> touch -c -r TODO TODO.utf8
> mv -f TODO.utf8 TODO
> 

I my opinion this file is needed. If anyone wants to start writing patches,
then he'll look into this file and start writing. So, I added the conversion to
the spec file.

> We can't fix W: strange-permission gpm.init 0755 as CVS won't let us do this,
> AFAIK. Please have a look in the future, that you're importing/adding files
> with the correct permissions, please (0644) - thanks.

Ok.

> BTW, somebody an idea, what causes W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/
> libgpm.so.2.1.0 and how to solve it?

I'll take a look on this.

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