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=486558 --- Comment #2 from David Nielsen <gnomeu...@gmail.com> 2009-02-20 13:09:18 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > This is only an informal review with some things I noticed. Furthermore it's > my > first review of a non-font package - so expect that I understand some things > wrong. > > * Why do you use ExclusiveArch instead of "ExcludeArch: ppc64"? Standard Mono packaging thing, see the comment > * %description devel: "contains development and header files...". Does Mono > have header files. Maybe something like "The %{name}-devel package contains > development files for %{name}." would be more suitable? It's basically a cut and paste thing, I can change it > * Why don't you register the library with gacutil as written in > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Mono#Packaging_Tips ? Is this > obsolete? The guidelines were written by a guy who no longer to my knowledge does Mono work, the current Mono SIG has not examined in depth. It is high on my list of things to understand properly. > * Maybe include the README file as %doc because it includes some hints on how > to use the library and there isn't any other documentation yet. true > That's all for now :) -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review