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: tkdnd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193632 ------- Additional Comments From sander@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-08 12:39 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10) > Looks good! Only two (nitpicking) minor issues: > > MUSTFIX > ======= > * Remove the extra directory in %doc by adding a wildcard: > %doc doc/* Yes I saw this myself a while ago but forgot to fix it, fixed now. > > * Move the "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" to the very first line in %install whoops, fixed > > SHOULD > ====== > * You need BuildRequires: xorg-x11-devel if you plan to build on FC4. You > can do this by either forking the spec files in CVS, or adding the following > to the current spec file: > %if "%fedora" <= "4" > BuildRequires: xorg-x11-devel > %else > BuildRequires: libXext-devel > %endif Should I build on FC4? If yes, I think I will go for a fork. > > * An alpha release of version 2.0 is available. Have you considered upgrading, > or is the alpha version not stable enough? I considered, but the alpha version is drop only, no drag yet. > > * Notify upstream about the 64-bit build issues and send them the patch. > I think this makes more sence for 2.0 only since i don't think they will release another 1.x. I will check if 2.0 builds ok for 64-bit after I get my new computer (tomorrow). Spec URL: http://amsn.hoentjen.eu/download/tkdnd.spec SRPM URL: http://amsn.hoentjen.eu/download/tkdnd-1.0a2-6.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