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: qjackctl - Qt based JACK control application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191239 ------- Additional Comments From nando@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-05-12 13:15 EST ------- > Package does not follow Fedora's package naming guildlines > (wiki: PackageNamingGuidelines) > release should be 1, 2, 3, not 2.0 Fixed (I was trying to not needlessly increment the release during the review process when packages have not yet been released). > BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils is missing Fixed, my mach based build environment already includes it by default and that's why I did not notice it missing. > %define desktop_vendor planetccrma > desktop_vendor is fedora :) > add to desktop-file-install: --add-category X-Fedora Added. > # distros with 2.4.x kernels should use jackstart as the default > %{?fc1:%define usejackstart 1} > %{?rh9:%define usejackstart 1} > this define can go since extras doesn't go that far back I erased this but I was hoping I would not have to keep separate spec files for Planet CCRMA and Fedora Extras (it does not really hurt to have it there). Oh well, just a little bit more extra pain I guess... > just use rm istead of %__rm macro Fixed. Is this a general policy (ie: don't even think of using macros for commands) or personal preference? Spec URL: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/extras/qjackctl.spec SRPM URL: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/extras/qjackctl-0.2.20-3.src.rpm -- 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