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=506755 --- Comment #14 from Chess Griffin <chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-06-22 15:44:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) > Sure, you can do that, since you don't need to take into account other > compilers than gcc. > > The -W switches control warnings that the compiler displays, so they're mostly > a cosmetic change. $(RPM_OPT_FLAGS) has a -Wall, though, so it's better to > remove anything that might collide with it. Right, thank you for the clarification. > > btw. you can see what rpm macros do with > $ rpm --eval %{optflags} > (I don't know if it's possible to do the same thing with $RPM_OPT_FLAGS, but > these are just two different styles of writing the same thing as %{buildroot} > and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.) Yep, I had checked those out already. I also made the macro style used consistent in the spec file. It mostly was, but there were a few places where it was inconsistent. Updated Spec: http://chessgriffin.com/files/pkgs/fedora/tmux/tmux.spec Updated SRPM: http://chessgriffin.com/files/pkgs/fedora/tmux/tmux-0.8-4.fc11.src.rpm These have also been put through rpmlint, mock, and koji with no errors or warnings reported. Thanks! -- 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