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=478399 Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> 2008-12-29 15:06:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > formal review is here, see the notes below: > > BAD BuildRequires are proper. > > BAD final provides and requires look sane. > > BAD no duplicates in %files. > > BAD GUI app with desktop file. > > > - no need to have pkgconfig as BR: , it is resolved from all used -devel BRs, > > Well, did not use to be the case; but this won't go to EPEL anyway since RHEL > lacks IrDA stack, so I removed the explicit pkgconfig dependency in the new > package. > > > gtk2-devel is a dependency of libnotify-devel, so the BRs should be only > > "intltool gettext libnotify-devel openobex-devel" > > Again -- it did not used to be. Also, I'm wondering if the redundant > buildrequires are forbidden? It makes a lot more sense to me to depend on > libnotify explicitly no matter if gtk does, since it's not guaranteed for > non-essential dependencies to go away (though it is not likely in this case). No, redundant BRs are not forbidden and this is the case when it makes sense to use them. All issues are fixed now, so this package is APPROVED. -- 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