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=225683 --- Comment #5 from Jindrich Novy <jn...@redhat.com> 2009-02-19 06:46:09 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > Notes: > > * "BuildRequires: gawk" is redundant (gawk is in Exceptions list > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ). Not an > issue, though. Removed. > * Looks like this package disallows parallel builds. You should add note about > it. Yup, commented. > * It's a good idea to add notes about patch status - upstreamed (with bz# or > with maillist's link), specific for fedora and therefore shouldn't be > upstreamed, etc Upstream is dead for couple of years AFAIK. > * What the purpose of expression at line 16? /usr/bin/strip tries to strip binaries generated by dev86. This is bad as strip doesn't know their format and fails so it is needed to be removed from __os_install_post. > Other things (except this sorrow situation with RPM_OPT_FLAGS, described > above) Fixed. Shipped binaries should now be compiled with RPM_OPT_FLAGS. > - File, containing the text of the license(s), MUST be included in %doc. Added both GPL and LGPL. > +/- Header files must be in a -devel package, but I'm in doubts whether this > rule can or cannot be applied in this case. And the next one. > +/- Static libraries must be in a -static package. See note above. Better not trying to fix this. This package is in many cases special and doesn't match the ordinary -devel and -static like packaging scheme. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
