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=476829 --- Comment #5 from Tim Waugh <twaugh@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-03 07:39:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > - you can drop setting the CFLAGS for the "make" commands in %build, there is > no C/C++ code built, if I see it right Yep. > - are the INSTALLSITELIB and INSTALLSITEARCH really required for the "make" > commands in %install? They looks like some pythonic paths. No, removed. > - what is the upstream versioning scheme? Does the version in the included > archive mean that it is a snapshot made 20081124 after the 3.0 release? Then > you should apply "post-release package guideline" - > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages > (version=3.0, release=1.20081124) It's daily snapshots and very infrequent version releases. I've switch to the post-release scheme now. > - according to the README in foomatic-db, there should be files licensed under > MIT too, please recheck and update the License tag to "GPLv2+ and MIT" Fixed (new sub-package carries MIT license). > - using only "rm -rf %{buildroot}" is sufficient for the %clean section Fixed. > - is the database useful for other purpose then for cups? No. I've updated the package to match the current devel foomatic package (newer snapshot, oki4linux obsoleted, etc), and also split out a 'ppds' sub-package for bug #461234. Spec URL: http://twaugh.fedorapeople.org/foomatic-db/foomatic-db.spec SRPM URL: http://twaugh.fedorapeople.org/foomatic-db/foomatic-db-4.0-1.20090702.fc11.src.rpm -- 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