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=485604 --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-15 22:22:02 EDT --- >I guess I don't have time to review this, however Thank you for your comments anyhow. >* Please make the build log more verbose so we can check > if Fedora specific compiler flags are correctly honored. ...snip... > so Fedora specific compilation flags are not correctly honored. I have done so in the new version. Thank you for spotting this issue. CFLAGS are now correctly using fedoras flags. >- Would you explain why this package does not Provide sion > despite that this Obsoletes sion? Well, I could do so, but this package has only been available for a short time in fedora. I don't think anyone would look for it under that name. I can do so, but not sure it would be worthwhile. >- --vendor="fedora" should not be used anymore. Removed. >- By the way how we can check if the binary part in waf > script file are under FOSS license? Well, it is a free build system, but now it appears it builds with the fedora version (at least in rawhide). Sion didn't. I have converted it to use Fedora's waf version and BuildRequire it. You can see the waf license in the 'waf' file. Sadly, the version in F9/F10 is too old, so there I will need to keep building with the local copy or get an update from the maintainer. New version that fixes above: Spec URL: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/gigolo/gigolo.spec SRPM URL: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/gigolo/gigolo-0.2.0-2.fc11.src.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