Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476440 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-22 02:31:30 EDT --- * On the website http://tug.ctan.org/cgi-bin/ctanPackageInformation.py?id=latexdiff I see that version is 0.5 As you said there are different version references within the source. I would try to get in touch with the author to ask about the correct version. I think it should be OK to go with the version of the latexdiff script for the whole package, because the whole package is named after that script. * It looks like this package must be noarch. * rpmlint gives bunch of errors of these types: W: summary-ended-with-dot E: description-line-too-long W: spurious-executable-perm W: incoherent-version-in-changelog E: no-binary E: empty-debuginfo-package They are all easy to fix. ? Why don't you use the existing Makefile facility? * I think all of doc/support/latexdiff/* files should go to %doc ? The source/latexdiff/example/ can go to %doc too. What do you think? ? Is the wrapper script source/latexdiff/contrib/latexdiff-wrap useful? Should we package it? * We prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-) * I don't think Requires: perl is necessary. rpmbuild itself picks up the perl dependencies. (check with "rpm -qpR <package.rpm>") -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review