https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267009
John Dulaney <jdulaney(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jdulaney(a)fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #4 from John Dulaney <jdulaney(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
Unofficial review:
rpmlint is throwing a few issues:
ola.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid
/usr/lib64/libolacommon.so.0.0.0
ola-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
ola-devel.x86_64: E: non-empty-%postun /sbin/ldconfig
python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ExpectedResults.py 644
/usr/bin/python
python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ModelCollector.py 644
/usr/bin/python
python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestState.py 644
/usr/bin/python
python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/DMXSender.py 644
/usr/bin/python
python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/ClientWrapper.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestLogger.py 644
/usr/bin/python
python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestRunner.py 644
/usr/bin/python
python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ResponderTest.py 644
/usr/bin/python
python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestHelpers.py 644
/usr/bin/python
python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/DMXConstants.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestCategory.py 644
/usr/bin/python
ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ExpectedResults.py 644
/usr/bin/python
ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ModelCollector.py 644
/usr/bin/python
ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestRunner.py 644
/usr/bin/python
ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ResponderTest.py 644
/usr/bin/python
ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestHelpers.py 644
/usr/bin/python
ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestState.py 644
/usr/bin/python
ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestLogger.py 644
/usr/bin/python
ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/DMXSender.py 644
/usr/bin/python
ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestCategory.py 644
/usr/bin/python
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %license.
Note: Cannot find MIT-LICENSE.txt in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "GPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later) LGPL
(v2 or
later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)",
"Apache (v2.0)
LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)", "BSD (3
clause)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)",
"LGPL
(v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3
or
later)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 400 files have
unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jdulaney/rpmbuild
/review-ola/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/udev, /usr/share/ola,
/usr/lib/udev/rules.d
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 4 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[ ]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python2-ola , ola-rdm-tests , ola-debuginfo
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: Mock build failed
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint
[ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1832960 bytes in /usr/share
[x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 1.2.13 starting (python version = 3.4.3)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled dnf cache
Start: cleaning dnf metadata
Finish: cleaning dnf metadata
INFO: enabled ccache
Mock Version: 1.2.13
INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.13
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s):
/home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-ola/results/ola-0.9.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
/home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-ola/results/ola-devel-0.9.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
/home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-ola/results/python2-ola-0.9.8-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
/home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-ola/results/ola-rdm-tests-0.9.8-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
/home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-ola/results/ola-debuginfo-0.9.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
/home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-ola/results/ola-debuginfo-0.9.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.
# /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-23-x86_64/root/ --releasever
23 install
/home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-ola/results/ola-0.9.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
/home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-ola/results/ola-devel-0.9.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
/home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-ola/results/python2-ola-0.9.8-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
/home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-ola/results/ola-rdm-tests-0.9.8-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
/home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-ola/results/ola-debuginfo-0.9.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
/home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-ola/results/ola-debuginfo-0.9.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ola-0.9.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
ola-devel-0.9.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
python2-ola-0.9.8-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
ola-rdm-tests-0.9.8-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
ola-debuginfo-0.9.8-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
ola-0.9.8-1.fc23.src.rpm
ola.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid
/usr/lib64/libolacommon.so.0.0.0
ola.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ola_rdm_get
ola.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ola_rdm_discover
ola.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ola_set_dmx
ola.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ola_rdm_set
ola-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
ola-devel.x86_64: E: non-empty-%postun /sbin/ldconfig
python2-ola.noarch: W: no-documentation
python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ExpectedResults.py 644
/usr/bin/python
python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ModelCollector.py 644
/usr/bin/python
python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestState.py 644
/usr/bin/python
python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/DMXSender.py 644
/usr/bin/python
python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/ClientWrapper.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestLogger.py 644
/usr/bin/python
python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestRunner.py 644
/usr/bin/python
python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ResponderTest.py 644
/usr/bin/python
python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestHelpers.py 644
/usr/bin/python
python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/DMXConstants.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python2-ola.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestCategory.py 644
/usr/bin/python
ola-rdm-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation
ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ExpectedResults.py 644
/usr/bin/python
ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ModelCollector.py 644
/usr/bin/python
ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestRunner.py 644
/usr/bin/python
ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/ResponderTest.py 644
/usr/bin/python
ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestHelpers.py 644
/usr/bin/python
ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestState.py 644
/usr/bin/python
ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestLogger.py 644
/usr/bin/python
ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/DMXSender.py 644
/usr/bin/python
ola-rdm-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ola/testing/rdm/TestCategory.py 644
/usr/bin/python
ola-rdm-tests.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdm_model_collector.py
ola-rdm-tests.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdm_responder_test.py
ola-rdm-tests.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rdm_test_server.py
ola.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
https://github.com/OpenLightingProject/ola/releases/download/0.9.8/ola-0....
HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 22 errors, 11 warnings.
Requires
--------
ola (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig
libavahi-client.so.3()(64bit)
libavahi-common.so.3()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
liblo.so.7()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libmicrohttpd.so.10()(64bit)
libola.so.1()(64bit)
libolaartnet.so.0()(64bit)
libolaartnetconf.so.0()(64bit)
libolacommon.so.0()(64bit)
liboladummy.so.0()(64bit)
libolae131.so.0()(64bit)
libolae131conf.so.0()(64bit)
libolaespnet.so.0()(64bit)
libolagpio.so.0()(64bit)
libolagpiocore.so.0()(64bit)
libolakarate.so.0()(64bit)
libolakinet.so.0()(64bit)
libolamilinst.so.0()(64bit)
libolaopendmx.so.0()(64bit)
libolaopenpixelcontrol.so.0()(64bit)
libolaosc.so.0()(64bit)
libolapathport.so.0()(64bit)
libolarenard.so.0()(64bit)
libolasandnet.so.0()(64bit)
libolaserver.so.0()(64bit)
libolaserverplugininterface.so.0()(64bit)
libolashownet.so.0()(64bit)
libolaspi.so.0()(64bit)
libolaspicore.so.0()(64bit)
libolastageprofi.so.0()(64bit)
libolatrigger.so.0()(64bit)
libolauartdmx.so.0()(64bit)
libolausbdmx.so.0()(64bit)
libolausbpro.so.0()(64bit)
libolausbproconf.so.0()(64bit)
libprotobuf.so.9()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libresolv.so.2()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libuuid.so.1()(64bit)
libuuid.so.1(UUID_1.0)(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
ola-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig
/usr/bin/pkg-config
libola.so.1()(64bit)
libolaartnet.so.0()(64bit)
libolaartnetconf.so.0()(64bit)
libolacommon.so.0()(64bit)
liboladummy.so.0()(64bit)
libolae131.so.0()(64bit)
libolae131conf.so.0()(64bit)
libolaespnet.so.0()(64bit)
libolagpio.so.0()(64bit)
libolagpiocore.so.0()(64bit)
libolakarate.so.0()(64bit)
libolakinet.so.0()(64bit)
libolamilinst.so.0()(64bit)
libolaopendmx.so.0()(64bit)
libolaopenpixelcontrol.so.0()(64bit)
libolaosc.so.0()(64bit)
libolapathport.so.0()(64bit)
libolarenard.so.0()(64bit)
libolasandnet.so.0()(64bit)
libolaserver.so.0()(64bit)
libolaserverplugininterface.so.0()(64bit)
libolashownet.so.0()(64bit)
libolaspi.so.0()(64bit)
libolaspicore.so.0()(64bit)
libolastageprofi.so.0()(64bit)
libolatrigger.so.0()(64bit)
libolauartdmx.so.0()(64bit)
libolausbdmx.so.0()(64bit)
libolausbpro.so.0()(64bit)
libolausbproconf.so.0()(64bit)
ola(x86-64)
pkgconfig(protobuf)
protobuf-devel
ola-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
python2-ola (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
ola
protobuf-python
python(abi)
ola-rdm-tests (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/python
python(abi)
python2-ola
Provides
--------
ola:
bundled(angular-route)
bundled(angularjs)
bundled(bootstrap)
bundled(jquery)
libola.so.1()(64bit)
libolaartnet.so.0()(64bit)
libolaartnetconf.so.0()(64bit)
libolacommon.so.0()(64bit)
liboladummy.so.0()(64bit)
libolae131.so.0()(64bit)
libolae131conf.so.0()(64bit)
libolaespnet.so.0()(64bit)
libolagpio.so.0()(64bit)
libolagpiocore.so.0()(64bit)
libolakarate.so.0()(64bit)
libolakinet.so.0()(64bit)
libolamilinst.so.0()(64bit)
libolaopendmx.so.0()(64bit)
libolaopenpixelcontrol.so.0()(64bit)
libolaosc.so.0()(64bit)
libolapathport.so.0()(64bit)
libolarenard.so.0()(64bit)
libolasandnet.so.0()(64bit)
libolaserver.so.0()(64bit)
libolaserverplugininterface.so.0()(64bit)
libolashownet.so.0()(64bit)
libolaspi.so.0()(64bit)
libolaspicore.so.0()(64bit)
libolastageprofi.so.0()(64bit)
libolatrigger.so.0()(64bit)
libolauartdmx.so.0()(64bit)
libolausbdmx.so.0()(64bit)
libolausbpro.so.0()(64bit)
libolausbproconf.so.0()(64bit)
ola
ola(x86-64)
ola-devel:
ola-devel
ola-devel(x86-64)
pkgconfig(libola)
pkgconfig(libolaartnetconf)
pkgconfig(libolae131conf)
pkgconfig(libolaserver)
pkgconfig(libolausbproconf)
ola-debuginfo:
ola-debuginfo
ola-debuginfo(x86-64)
python2-ola:
python-ola
python2-ola
ola-rdm-tests:
bundled(jquery)
bundled(jquery-ui)
ola-rdm-tests
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/OpenLightingProject/ola/releases/download/0.9.8/ola-0....
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
1c1e0fc1810b0c0857563bc481c872b8ed5d2e62c97c1083c82eabd7ebbd70a6
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
1c1e0fc1810b0c0857563bc481c872b8ed5d2e62c97c1083c82eabd7ebbd70a6
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n ola
Buildroot used: fedora-23-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP,
Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
I note that you are bundling. I realize that this is now sort of technically
allowed, but, it's still not best practice. Would you be able to unbundle
these libs? If you can't, it's surviveable, but better to use the libs in the
repos already if you can.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component