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=498736 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-03 14:26:46 EDT --- Assigning. Before doing full-review - Why is %install section empty this time? - Please consider to use %?dist tag: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag - Is this the expected behavior on ucommon-config.in? ---------------------------------------------------------------- 16 if [ "`ldd /bin/sh | grep lib64`" = "" ] 17 then 18 libdir=${exec_prefix}/lib 19 else 20 libdir=${exec_prefix}/lib64 21 fi .... .... 56 case "$1" in 57 --prefix=*) 58 prefix=$optarg 59 includedir=$prefix/include 60 libdir=$prefix/lib 61 ;; ---------------------------------------------------------------- Here when --prefix or --exec_prefix is specified, libdir will always points to XXXXX/lib even on 64 bits architecture. - Please follow Fedora's %changelog format: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs ! For sipwitch please submit a new review request for the package and make this review request block the review request for sipwitch. -- 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