Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192049 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus@xxxxxxx 2006-08-21 02:49 EST ------- (In reply to comment #38) > Nod, but until that is fixed it doesn't make sense really to include gnash in > Extras. I suggest a bug be opened for that issue and that it block this bug. This bug will likely be driver dependent... > > I also think that it would be better to prefix plugin-tempfile-dir.patch > > with gnash, such that it is called gnash-plugin-tempfile-dir.patch > > instead. > > Why? :) Because it helps knowing that it is a source file associated with the gnash rpm. Especially handy when you have a lot of patches and source in SOURCES. But it is not a blocker, just a remark. > (In reply to comment #37) > > Another remark, autoconf is required by automake. > > So you mean it shouldn't be in BR? It can be removed I suppose > though it makes the dependency on autoreconf less obvious... > Perhaps autoconf should require automake too? autoconf shouldn't require automake, since it doesn't require automake. In our case builrequires for autoconf is not that bad, it is just an unneeded buildrequires, and the practice (and I think it is somewhere in the guidelines) is to avoid buildrequires when there are allready implied by another package. Not a blocker (other reviewers would consider that a blocker, I think) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review