Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ghc-gtk2hs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189197 ------- Additional Comments From gemi@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-04-30 09:55 EST ------- 1. I modified the spec file so that I can find my way around more easily. You are free to use it. 2. I think the documentation package should install the documentation in gtk2hs-doc-%{version} or ghc-gtk2hs-doc-%{version}, since all directories in /usr/share/doc are versioned. 3. /usr/lib/ghc should be owned by the packages that install into it, otherwise it hangs around, if all packages have been removed. 4. Rather than remove the .o files in %preun, they should be %ghost'ed 5. The package.conf.old file should also be %ghost'ed by the ghc package otherwise, a complete uninstall leaves something hanging around. 6. The demos should also be packaged. 7. rpmlint complains about non-devel packages requiring devel packages. This should be ignored, otherwise we would have to append -devel to all packages. 8. rpmlint: "W: ghc642-glade summary-ended-with-dot Haskell binding of glade for gtk2hs." Remove the dot. 9. Currently, if someones builds a package requiring the gconf part of gtk2hs, he will need to require ghc642-gconf, even if he doesn't care about the exact version of ghc. Requiring ghc-gtk2hs does the right thing, but only for gtk, glib and cairo. Would "Provides: ghc-gconf" etc... work? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review