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 paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-05-12 13:46 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > It's personal preference. I personally consider this change to be a regression > > since "%__rm" expends to a fully-qualified pathname, unlike plain "rm". > > What about %{__make}? I've been asked to change that to "make" in some reviews. My personal preference is to use the macros where they are available, and fully-qualified pathnames otherwise, for all commands used in the build process. > Fernando - I think people also like to see: > Source0: http://dl.sourceforge.net/qjackctl/qjackctl-0.2.20.tar.gz > instead of > Source0: http://dl.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > since it is directly wget'able, although I don't know if it's > official policy or not. My preference is: Source0: http://dl.sf.net/qjackctl/qjackctl-%{version}.tar.gz Reasons: * dl.sf.net is a shorter URL :-) * using the package name explicitly rather than just %{name} is a little more readable, and the package name is hardly likely to change very often * the version number is likely to change, so using the %{version} macro helps maintainability of the package * whilst the use of the %{version} macro prevents wget from working directly, you can use spectool from the fedora-rpmdevtools package to retrieve the source for you - it will automatically expand the macro -- 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