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=512217 --- Comment #18 from Christoph Wickert <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-18 15:01:45 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #6) > > The guidelines only demand that macro usage is consistent. This means not > > to mix e. g. %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. The rest is up to the > > maintainer. > > Because at present there is an *inconsistent* mixture of %{name} and > "geany-plugins" used in the specfile. Consistency is the key here, I agree. Let me repeat what I said before: The *macro* usage needs to be consistent, this means not mixing different macro styles. There is no need to replace every appearance of "geany-plugins" with a macro, this is up to the maintainer, e. g. many people consider using %{name} in the URL or Source0 tag, since it makes copy & paste harder. (In reply to comment #17) > I would recommend calling the subpackages %{name}-foo (i.e. geany-plugins-foo) > rather than geany-plugin-foo for consistency with other plugin bundles (eg. > claws-mail-plugins-*). Blame me, this was my suggestion. IMO it should be "plugin", because each package only contains a single plugin. We had this in other packages as well in the past (e. g. audaciuos-plugin-*), but obviously this has be changed in the meantime, so I agree with you. -- 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