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=492224 --- Comment #9 from Sean Middleditch <sean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-06-05 11:49:11 EDT --- * renamed. note that upstream has a gnome-mud.spec in the tarball itself, which is not Fedora compatible (since every distro seems hell bent on creating artificial incompatibilities through the distro-specific packaging of otherwise identical binaries). * fixed license tag. * fixed gtk build-requires. removed all versions on build-requires after checking up the f10 versions via koji. * wrapped description * the make install bit I had was copied right out of the wiki for fedora packaging. updated to what you provided; might suggest updating the wiki to actually state best practice. copying from existing core Fedora packages clearly isn't a good way to get an idea on best practice either. * moved desktop-file-validate. fixed schemas path name (whoops). removed all references to scrollkeeper, since it seems that the docs in 0.11.2 are broken and not installed (worked in svn when I was packaging that). * changed the %files section reference to the datadir to just %{_datadir}/%{name} per the wiki's suggestion for ensuring ownership of directory and all files underneath. * removed INSTALL from docs Did a scratch build on Koji and made sure it builds on all archs. Installed and testing on my desktop to make sure it actually runs and works. http://middleditch.us/sean/gnome-mud.spec http://middleditch.us/sean/gnome-mud-0.11.2-2.fc11.src.rpm -- 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