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: gcin - Chinese input method for Traditional Chinese https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201337 ------- Additional Comments From paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-08-23 10:26 EST ------- (In reply to comment #41) > Created an attachment (id=134711) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=134711&action=view) [edit] > Build log of gcin-1.2.2-8 on fc6-devel with fedora undefined > > Hello. > > So I cannot sponsor formally for this package (because > I am not a member), who will be the sponsor for this package? It is the submitter that is sponsored, not the package. > I think that this package leaves "little" problem, so > it would be better that this package can be released ASAP. > > The reason I mentioned "little" is because > * I can rebuild this package with mock. > * however, I canNOT rebuild this package without mock even > with proper BR rpms installed > because usually %{fedora} is undefined and so Patch5 is applied > when rebuilt withOUT mock, this is not right for FC5 and above. > > Now, FC4 and below FC4 are marked as regacy, so this package > can be released only for FE5 and FE6-devel. So, Patch5 is > not needed, perhaps? You can define the macro manyually if you wish: $ rpmbuild -ba --define 'fedora 5' --define 'dist .fc5' packagename.spec I think it would be better though if the default (i.e. with the fedora macro undefined) was appropriate for the current release (FC5/FC6) and the extra defines were only needed for the legacy distros, -- 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