On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:20:58 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > Just FYI, > > I have filed over 110+ bugs against ATrpms for conflicts against FC/FE > repositories. The tracker bug is here: > > http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1028 > > Let's hope some good becomes of this. I've taken a look at http://dl.atrpms.net/all/pth.spec and see no added value compared with the package in Extras other than that it's 2.0.7 instead of 2.0.6. v2.0.7 contains only an unneeded upgrade of the build tools, an updated year in copyright strings, and no changes in the code. So, it's the typical "if 2.0.6 built fine, why upgrade?" case. At the spec level, I see %configure enables several options which are the default already. Apart from that, the spec file is obfuscated with a non-Fedora macro %lib_dependencies, which seem to hide important packaging details (e.g. the %files list is truncated and doesn't include shared libs or a -devel package, most likely because that is done outside the spec in custom macros). -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
