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: geda-examples - Circuit examples for gEDA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204601 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-09-01 10:25 EST ------- This package is very simple and there exists little problems or questions. First review of geda-examples : 1. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines : * Requires * File and Directory Ownership - Well, this package may be unuseful without geda-gschem, however, does this package "really require" geda-gschem? I mean that for example, xorg-x11-docs maybe unuseful without xorg-x11 installed, however, xorg-x11-docs itself does not require anything. If the problem is only for the ownership of %{_datadir}/gEDA/ (owned by geda-schem), this is a good reason for geda-symbols to own %{_datadir}/gEDA/, too, and the requirement for geda-gschem can be removed. You can see for example that /usr/share/X11/ is owned by several packages, e.g. imake, libX11, xorg-x11-xsm, xorg-x11-apps, ..... - Another thing is %{_datadir}/gEDA/examples . This is also owned by geda-gschem. If you think that this package (geda-examples) really requires geda-gschem, then the entry of %dir %{gedaexampledir} can be removed. Well, the problem of ownership of directories is complicated when there are several packages which are mutually related. 2. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines : = Nothing. 3. Other things I have noticed: = Nothing. -- 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