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=520343 Sean Middleditch <sean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(sean@middleditch. | |us) | --- Comment #4 from Sean Middleditch <sean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-19 17:04:03 EDT --- 1) I am now explicitly setting the CFLAGS in the spec file, which both adds the Fedora optimization flags and also overrides the Makefile's defaults (so the spec file has to include a couple flags specific to clc). 2) Annoyingly, the tarballs were identical in contents other than timestamps on the files. I made sure I have the tarball directly from upstream in SOURCES now. 3) The package is using the macros/variables consistently. I had $RPM_BUILD_ROOT only and no references to %{buildroot}. The link you provided states that I should use one or the other (with no official preference towards either) and that I should not mix usage of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} in a single spec file, which I already complied with. I converted to the macro style anyway since it looks nicer IMO, and I used the macro style for %{optflags} as well. New files: Spec URL: http://middleditch.us/sean/clc.spec SRPM URL: http://middleditch.us/sean/clc-0.01-4.fc12.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