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=494647 --- Comment #3 from Alan Dunn <amdunn@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-08 13:39:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > I have a couple of questions about the spec file: > > 1) Is there some reason to avoid the %configure macro in the spec file? (And > "s/Not/Note" in the comment above the configure invocation if so.) I actually would've, but I was told by another person ("pre-review"?) that it was wise to avoid %configure. I was trying to remember the reason for this, but I noticed that I have done this in many of my spec files, so I did it here too, adding exactly the options I thought was necessary. If I can't remember the reason, I'll change it back. (The "Not" was supposed to be a "Not" - it doesn't really matter here, but rpmlint complains otherwise. I suppose this would only occur if you didn't use %configure) > 2) Shouldn't this package "Requires: emacs(bin)"? Yes, it should, sorry. > You noted a problem with "make mmm.pdf". The problem is that the texinfo.tex > in the mmm-mode distribution is being used, and it is too old (it's from > 1999!). Just rm it, and then the system texinfo.tex gets used, and you get a > good build. Ah - great, I'll do that. > Some of the Emacs Lisp warnings have me concerned, especially the notes that > regexp-opt is being called with 3 arguments but only accepts 1 or 2. This is > almost certain to lead to broken compiled code. I'll make a patch for you. > Hang on.... -- 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