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=510822 --- Comment #4 from Tim Fenn <fenn@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-11 17:41:40 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > I'm a bit confused about the versioning. Is the "-1" in the tarball > indicative of some sub-version thing? Will they release 0.2-2 in the > future? What would you call this package in that case? Upstream also > produces RPMs and seems to use the dashed portion of the version as their > Release: (or perhaps that's just coincidental), but it should be obvious that > we can't do that. > I'm not sure what that indicates, and its entirely reasonable to assume a "-2" version will be made at some point. Is it possible/OK to just transmogrify "0.2-1" into "0.2.1"? Perhaps its best to ask upstream WTF that number represents? > The blank line at the start of %description does make it into the final package > and should probably be removed. > done. > Did you intend not to build and package the documentation? It seems like that > would be a good idea, but I haven't checked that the documentation is actually > useful. > Oh, yeah - i kind of whipped this up in a jif so I could test the apbs builds I was doing - I'll add that in. > Why does this require pkgconfig? I don't see any .pc files in the package. > Oops - removed. > > The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package > reviews recently, please consider doing one. When I get enough free time, I'll jump in! :) -- 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