https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502 --- Comment #1 from marcindulak <Marcin.Dulak(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Problems reported by fedora-review: daq.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libsfbpf.so.0.0.1 exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5 daq.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libsfbpf.so.0.0.1 daq.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libsfbpf.so.0.0.1 daq.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libdaq.so.2.0.4 daq.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libdaq.so.2.0.4 daq-modules.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/daq/daq_ipfw.so ['/usr/lib64'] daq-modules.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/daq/daq_nfq.so ['/usr/lib64'] daq-modules.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/daq/daq_afpacket.so ['/usr/lib64'] I've tried various workarounds against rpath, e.g. %{_configure} --libdir=%{_libdir} --disable-rpath %{__sed} -i 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=.*|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=""|g' libtool %{__sed} -i 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' libtool Any suggestions how to force daq to drop rpath? References: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Removing_Rpath https://wiki.debian.org/RpathIssue -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502 --- Comment #3 from marcindulak <Marcin.Dulak(a)gmail.com&gt; --- The workarounds were seemingly not working due to local mock cache used during fedora-review so old daq RPMS were installed ... The version below is ready for review: Spec URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/daq/r02/daq.spec SRPM URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/daq/r02/daq-2.0.6-1.fc23.src... -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502 --- Comment #4 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed - Files in sfbpf/ are licensed under BSD* licenses. Add BSD to License tag. - devel sub-packages do not need to provide COPYING - %{_configure} macro is wrong. Use %configure - Following lines are useless %post -n %{name}-devel -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -n %{name}-devel -p /sbin/ldconfig - %{__make} %{?_smp_mflags} = %make_build - Once you set %configure, probably you will not need using %{__make} install prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix} exec_prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_exec_prefix} libdir=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir} anymore, but %make_install - Static files are not necessary, unless there is some specific reason. Use --enable-static=no - AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: daq-2.0.6/configure.ac:13 See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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. Generic: [x]: 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 (v2 or later)", "BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (4 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2)". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1394502-daq/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: daq-modules-static, daq-static. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in daq- modules , daq-modules-static , daq-static , daq-debuginfo [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: daq-2.0.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm daq-modules-2.0.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm daq-modules-static-2.0.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm daq-devel-2.0.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm daq-static-2.0.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm daq-debuginfo-2.0.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm daq-2.0.6-1.fc26.src.rpm daq.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpcap -> slipcase daq.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libsfbpf.so.0.0.1 exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5 daq-modules.x86_64: W: no-documentation daq-modules-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation daq-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib daq-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation daq-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary daq-modules-config daq-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation daq.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpcap -> slipcase daq.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://www.snort.org/downloads/snort/daq-2.0.6.tar.gz HTTP Error 403: Forbidden 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: daq-debuginfo-2.0.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- daq-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib daq-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation daq-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary daq-modules-config daq-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation daq-modules-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation daq.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpcap -> slipcase daq.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libsfbpf.so.0.0.1 exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5 daq-modules.x86_64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Requires -------- daq-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /sbin/ldconfig daq(x86-64) libdaq.so.2()(64bit) libsfbpf.so.0()(64bit) daq-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): daq-devel(x86-64) daq-modules-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): daq-modules(x86-64) daq (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) daq-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): daq-modules (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdnet.so.1()(64bit) libnetfilter_queue.so.1()(64bit) libnfnetlink.so.0()(64bit) libpcap.so.1()(64bit) libsfbpf.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- daq-devel: daq-devel daq-devel(x86-64) daq-static: daq-static daq-static(x86-64) daq-modules-static: daq-modules-static daq-modules-static(x86-64) daq: daq daq(x86-64) libdaq.so.2()(64bit) libsfbpf.so.0()(64bit) daq-debuginfo: daq-debuginfo daq-debuginfo(x86-64) daq-modules: daq-modules daq-modules(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- daq-modules: /usr/lib64/daq/daq_afpacket.so daq-modules: /usr/lib64/daq/daq_dump.so daq-modules: /usr/lib64/daq/daq_ipfw.so daq-modules: /usr/lib64/daq/daq_nfq.so daq-modules: /usr/lib64/daq/daq_pcap.so Source checksums ---------------- https://www.snort.org/downloads/snort/daq-2.0.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b40e1d1273e08aaeaa86e69d4f28d535b7e53bdb3898adf539266b63137be7cb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b40e1d1273e08aaeaa86e69d4f28d535b7e53bdb3898adf539266b63137be7cb AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: daq-2.0.6/configure.ac:13 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1394502 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502 --- Comment #6 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Code under BSD is directly involved, BSD is not compatible with GPLv2; License should be 'GPLv2 and BSD', unless upstream chooses to use a GPLv2+. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license... - dap does not build globally on rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16476243 - Use these scriptlets %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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. Generic: [x]: 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 (v2 or later)", "BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (4 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2)". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/1394502-daq/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in daq- modules , daq-debuginfo [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: daq-2.0.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm daq-modules-2.0.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm daq-devel-2.0.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm daq-debuginfo-2.0.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm daq-2.0.6-1.fc26.src.rpm daq.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpcap -> slipcase daq.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libsfbpf.so.0.0.1 exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5 daq-modules.x86_64: W: no-documentation daq-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib daq-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation daq-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary daq-modules-config daq.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpcap -> slipcase daq.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://www.snort.org/downloads/snort/daq-2.0.6.tar.gz HTTP Error 403: Forbidden 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: daq-debuginfo-2.0.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- daq.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libpcap -> slipcase daq.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libsfbpf.so.0.0.1 exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5 daq-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib daq-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation daq-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary daq-modules-config daq-modules.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Requires -------- daq-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): daq (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) daq-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh daq(x86-64) libdaq.so.2()(64bit) libsfbpf.so.0()(64bit) daq-modules (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libdnet.so.1()(64bit) libnetfilter_queue.so.1()(64bit) libnfnetlink.so.0()(64bit) libpcap.so.1()(64bit) libsfbpf.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- daq-debuginfo: daq-debuginfo daq-debuginfo(x86-64) daq: daq daq(x86-64) libdaq.so.2()(64bit) libsfbpf.so.0()(64bit) daq-devel: daq-devel daq-devel(x86-64) daq-modules: daq-modules daq-modules(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- daq-modules: /usr/lib64/daq/daq_afpacket.so daq-modules: /usr/lib64/daq/daq_dump.so daq-modules: /usr/lib64/daq/daq_ipfw.so daq-modules: /usr/lib64/daq/daq_nfq.so daq-modules: /usr/lib64/daq/daq_pcap.so Source checksums ---------------- https://www.snort.org/downloads/snort/daq-2.0.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b40e1d1273e08aaeaa86e69d4f28d535b7e53bdb3898adf539266b63137be7cb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b40e1d1273e08aaeaa86e69d4f28d535b7e53bdb3898adf539266b63137be7cb AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: daq-2.0.6/configure.ac:13 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1394502 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502 --- Comment #8 from marcindulak <Marcin.Dulak(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Spec URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/daq/r04/daq.spec SRPM URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/daq/r04/daq-2.0.6-1.fc23.src... (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #6) using GPLv2 and BSD now fixed ExcludeArch: %{ix86} http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16476436 -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502 --- Comment #10 from marcindulak <Marcin.Dulak(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Does not compile https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/6248/16476248/build.log -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502 --- Comment #12 from marcindulak <Marcin.Dulak(a)gmail.com&gt; --- I use %{__make} instead of %{make_build} and it builds http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16477244 Spec URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/daq/r05/daq.spec SRPM URL: http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/daq/r05/daq-2.0.6-1.fc23.src... -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502 --- Comment #14 from marcindulak <Marcin.Dulak(a)gmail.com&gt; --- thanks -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- daq-2.0.6-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-6fefc97dbe -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- daq-2.0.6-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-aa3ba5ce3e -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- daq-2.0.6-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-6fefc97dbe -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394502 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- daq-2.0.6-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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