[Bug 500506] Review Request: 389-adminutil - renamed from adminutil
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon May 18 19:57:23 UTC 2009
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=500506
--- Comment #2 from Rich Megginson <rmeggins at redhat.com> 2009-05-18 15:57:21 EDT ---
Updated
Source URL: http://port389.org/sources/389-adminutil-1.1.8.tar.bz2
md5sum 389-adminutil-1.1.8.tar.bz2
e84240547e2f7b97d0576bcb85c06a57 389-adminutil-1.1.8.tar.bz2
sha1sum 389-adminutil-1.1.8.tar.bz2
17581245a0d95b3f7cda90c3ed83b7984afe9b2c 389-adminutil-1.1.8.tar.bz2
I would like to waive or otherwise accept the rpmlint results.
This is the output I get from rpmlint - same results with both rpmlint 0.85 and
0.87 on Fedora 10
389-adminutil.i386: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libadmsslutil.so.1.1.8
exit at GLIBC_2.0
389-adminutil.i386: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libadminutil.so.1.1.8
exit at GLIBC_2.0
This is ok - these are functions specifically for handling fatal errors on
behalf of the calling application.
389-adminutil-devel.i386: W: no-documentation
The devel package has no documentation - it's all in the base package
rpmlint -v
/var/lib/mock/fedora-10-i386/result/389-adminutil-1.1.8-2.fc10.src.rpm
389-adminutil.src: I: checking
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
I'm not sure where the other errors are coming from. I do know that
libadminutil does not strictly need to link directly against ssl, nss,
ssldap60, or ldif60 - but all applications that want to support SSL (which is
all of them) will need to also link with libadmsslutil which does require the
SSL libs. ldif60 is not strictly needed but it doesn't hurt to link with it.
The ICU dependencies are required to link with ICU even though rpmlint says
they are not needed.
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list