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=462521 --- Comment #13 from John Guthrie <guthrie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-24 01:42:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12) > Sorry, $DAYJOB exploded on me for a couple of weeks there. :) No problem. I suppose that it's good that $DAYJOB != "". ;-) > It's more elegant to BuildRequire the demo package and move the file where you > need it (+ change package, whatever), but I don't think it would be wrong to > just include the file itself as a separate Source: file in the SRPM. Whichever > you prefer, I'd say. That's what I was thinking. I didn't know if there was any downside though. Here is the new SRPM URL with the new BuildRequire: http://www.guthrie.info/RPMS/f10/simplyhtml-0.12.5-4.fc10.src.rpm The Spec file URL is still the same, but updated. -- 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