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=503136 --- Comment #2 from Alex Hudson (Fedora Address) <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-06-15 14:17:20 EDT --- Hi Jussi, Thanks very much for reviewing this. Sorry it has taken me a little while to respond! I've updated the spec and SRPM: http://alexh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/csync/csync.spec http://alexh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/csync/csync-0.43.0-2.fc11.src.rpm * Summary for libs - you're right. I've tried to write something better. * target platform bits - I've had to do a push/pop because csync doesn't allow in-source builds, only out-of-source. I'm not sure the KDE4 cmake macro helps in this regard; https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE gives a similar "Best practice" (see bottom of page). The alternative would be to patch the build system, which would be possible, but isn't a system tested by upstream. * devel requires - yes, you're right again :) * need for -libs - I plan on packaging the pam-csync module, which uses the libraries rather than the binary, hence the separation. * directory ownership - again, you're right: sorry, I'm not sure how I missed that. -- 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