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=490580
--- Comment #2 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com> 2009-03-21
02:56:14 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Created an attachment (id=336130)
-->
(
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=336130) [details]
[Review]
Attached is my initial review.
Thank you for the initial review!
Summary:
- rpmlint: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib should be explained or fixed
I fixed this. I put all those files in %{_datadir}/%{name}
- should tools/%{name}2pd-* be %doc?
pd (Pure Data:
http://puredata.info/) is a large programming environment that
is unfortunately not packaged in Fedora yet. Thus installing these files in
%{_bindir} will not mean much for the time being (We could even build these
files from sources if we had pd in Fedora.). I am thinking of keeping these in
%doc until the day we have pd packaged (which is no easy task).
- is the doc subpackage not requiring the base package intentional?
Yes that was intentional. I checked the existing doc subpackages we have in
Fedora. Some require the main package, some don't. On a second thought, I
couldn't think of a case where someone would just want the doc subpackage for
faust without needing the main package, so I added the dep.
So here we are:
Spec URL:
http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/faust.spec
SRPM URL:
http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/faust-0.9.9.4-2.b.fc10.src.rpm
Changelog: 0.9.9.4-2.b
- Fix the year of the previous changelog entry
- Install the nonbinary files in %%{_datadir}/%%{name}/
- Add Requires: %%{name}=%%{version}-%%{release} to the doc subpackage
--
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.