Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206814 ------- Additional Comments From bruno@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-09-17 16:16 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > > You don't need gcc-c++ or libstdc++-devel really. Is there a reason for using > the old gtk instead of gtk2? I've removed the c++ build dependencies and the gtk+ stuff was left over from when this library did build against gtk+, gone. > # autopanog.exe is a mono app > > In which case you need the BRs for mono Hugin is a front-end for lots of other tools. Autopano is one, but it is peripheral and not a hugin requirement. It is a mono app, so this fix would let it run if a user did decide to install it. > Any reason for not using smp_mflags? None, fixed. > Some of the time with findlang, you need to use something other than %{name}. I've reread the find_lang docs a few more times and I think I have it working, fixed. > E hugin version-control-internal-file Oops, very embarassing typo I added at the last minute, fixed. > E: hugin-debuginfo script-without-shellbang I don't get debuginfo RPMs on x86_64, should be fixed. > Definite NO-NO - you're building static libraries and not shared ones. The hugin sources contain a modified version of the vigra impex library, is that what you mean? Upstream intends to pass the changes further upstream, but until then they are linking it in statically. If it was separated it would conflict with the real vigra library. That's my understanding anyway. Spec URL: http://bugbear.blackfish.org.uk/~bruno/apt/SPECS/hugin.spec SRPM URL: http://bugbear.blackfish.org.uk/~bruno/apt/fedora/linux/5/x86_64/SRPMS.panorama/hugin-0.6.1-3.fc5.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review