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=488124 --- Comment #7 from Alexey Torkhov <atorkhov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-11 18:07:44 EDT --- Spec URL: http://atorkhov.fedorapeople.org/gnubik.spec SRPM URL: http://atorkhov.fedorapeople.org/gnubik-2.3-4.fc10.src.rpm (In reply to comment #5) > Okay, here's the rest of the full review: (* = blockers, ! = suggestions) > > * The Release field in the above SPEC file is incorrect. Sorry, I put wrong version of spec. > ! Please expand the description to 80 columns. Fixed. > * Please remove the binary .gmo files in %prep Fixed. > ! It would probably better to build the .info file from source with something > like > makeinfo doc/gnubik.texinfo > Note that this will need adding texinfo to BuildRequries. Fixed. > ! The BRs: libX11-devel mesa-libGL-devel mesa-libGLU-devel gtk2-devel are not > necessary. They will be pulled up by gtkglext-devel. > (Side note: When we really need to BR mesa-libGL-devel or mesa-libGLU-devel, we > should BR the virtual provides' libGL-devel libGLU-devel. But as I said above, > this is unnecessay for this package) Those libs are explicitly checked in configure and used in code. I'd like to leave it in perfection of agreement between spec and code :) > ! The explicit Requires: hicolor-icon-theme is not necessary. It will be > automatically picked up by dependency chain. I would prefer if this dep is also listed explicitly. -- 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