Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919469
--- Comment #12 from Patrick Monnerat <p...@datasphere.ch> --- > I can't tell whether Patrick should patch my RPM file or keep an entirely new > one; to me, Fedora seems too cutting-edge in terms of spec files (e.g., I > don't want to lose, in general, the ability to build on/for RHEL - or cut off > things which will work on other RPM-based distros), so I guess it is better > for the package maintainer to decide. That's my idea too, and that's why the "misc" patch only change things in the included spec file that are applicable to generic rpmbuilds. I maintain a Fedora spec file separately and do not force it into the project. The original "misc" patch was primarily made for upstream and it was (originally) quicker and simpler to include it "as is" in the Fedora build since it is a superset of the needed fixes. I'm perfectly aware that changing the tarball spec file has no impact on the Fedora package. I've now implemented the needed changes into 2 patches: "badvarset" to fix configure.ac. "morefrench" to add the translated string. SPEC URL: http://monnerat.fedorapeople.org/mate-applet-softupd.spec SRPM URL: http://monnerat.fedorapeople.org/mate-applet-softupd-0.2.5-3.fc18.src.rpm @Assen: many thanks for your participation :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=EF6DkN28ky&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
