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=785371 --- Comment #24 from Alec Leamas <leamas.a...@gmail.com> 2012-02-08 11:58:24 EST --- Sorry for last spam, let's hope somebody smiled. Just a little, but still. I have made a quick check (*not* a review) of your spec file. I have attached a diff of the changes I made. This diff *cannot* just be applied, but should give you a hint. Feel free to ask if in doubt.. Some major issues: - I think the %pkg_name macro adds nothing but confusion. Remove it, and rename patches and sources to %{name} instead. - It is not ok to add the non-standard paths to ld.so.conf.d, these unversioned libs must be private. One solution might be to ask upstream to revert to use rpath (it's OK here, although rmplint will warn.) Another way might be to add a (edit existing?) wrapper script to use LD_LIBRARY_PATH. We need to settle on this, but not until upstream have handled what they already have at hands from us. - Don't repeat the overall description in sub-packages. - Remove unused macros. - Order sources before patches, and in consecutive numbers. Otherwise, see the patch. Look for TBD besides what's changed. --a -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
