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: qt4: Qt GUI toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188180 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-05-18 12:41 EST ------- Re: comment 91 >What about just putting the doc/html area in doc, and both demos and > examples back in devel. That would move off a large amount of docs > and would get rid of all these wacky requirements. The doc subpackage > would just have html stuff in it. assistant and qtdemo could move back to devel. I guess you missed the part about assistant auto-loading docs on startup (comment #57), so assitant and doc/html are tied together. qtdemo I don't see as something strictly needed in a development environment, so, IMO should stay in -doc, but I don't feel strongly about that. > I don't see you using -headerdir, -datadir, and -sysconfdir Not yet, though we're using -libdir (though trivially, for a different reason) > On the desktop-install, shouldn't the vendor be: 'fedora'? That's not a hard/fast rule. It's more important, long-term, that .desktop files reflect upstream and *never* be renamed, so, I chose qt4 instead. > 2. It still doesn't build for me even with the patch from comment #90. Yeah, turns out you can't mix hard-coding the docdir path *and* use %doc pointing to the same place (because using %doc rm -rf everything there first). Fix: set qt_docdir to something else, like back to %%_docdir/%%name-doc-%%version -- 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