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=507030 --- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2009-06-21 12:13:54 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > Cheers Jussi, > > I've done the changes you mention. There are a few things I'd like to query: > > - I can't find anything about patch naming in the packaging guidelines. This is an unwritten rule, which is really necessary if you have the sources of N packages in the SOURCES directory. If you don't have a reasonable naming system, there's no way to see what sources correspond to which package. This system of naming is implicit in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25prep_section:_.25patch_commands > - I think I do need python-setuptools as a BuildRequires, as setup.py requires > it and it's not listed in the exception list: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2 > Building without python-setuptools results in fail: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1427723&name=build.log Oh okay, no problem then. > - Why did you require me to make the change to %files, as the RPM ends up > owning exactly the same files and directories? For a couple of reasons: clearness and picking up errors. For example if the egg-info is not produced in the build you won't pick it up if you're using wildcards. By specifying the two directories you will know if the build is incomplete. > > Updated spec: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/rds/rpm/pymunk/pymunk.spec > New SRPM: > http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/rds/rpm/pymunk/pymunk-0.8.2-2.fc11.src.rpm > > Thanks, > > Rob -- 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