Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220381
Summary: Review Request: flex-old - Legacy version of flex, a
tool for creating scanners
Product: Fedora Core
Version: devel
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: normal
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: pmachata(a)redhat.com
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,notting(a)redhat.com
Spec URL:
http://people.redhat.com/~pmachata/flex-old.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/~pmachata/flex-old-2.5.4a-1.src.rpm
Description:
We are preparing to get reentrant flex (2.5.33) into Fedora Core. After the discussion
with notting, we settled down on a following scenario:
* starting with FC7, the package flex will provide flex-2.5.33
* in addition, flex-old will be provided, holding 2.5.4 branch of flex
* the two packages don't conflict, it's possible to install them side by side
flex-old installs everything with the -old suffix, e.g. /usr/bin/flex-old,
/usr/lib/libfl-old.a. Header file is in /usr/include/flex-old/FlexLexer.h, so that
it's possible to request its inclusion via gcc's -I flag (dirs added with -I have
precedence before system include directories).
The output of rpmlint is as follows:
$ rpmlint ../RPMS/i386/flex-old-2.5.4a-1.i386.rpm
W: flex-old devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libfl-old.a
W: flex-old devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/flex-old/FlexLexer.h
flex is of course development package itself, so the warnings should be ignored.
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.