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=523715 --- Comment #3 from Klaus Grue <grue@xxxxxxx> 2009-09-20 14:07:50 EDT --- Thanks to Fabian Affolter for comment #1. I have updated the package accordingly. The new version is here: Spec URL: http://logiweb.eu/0.2/0.2.3/download/logiweb.spec SRPM URL: http://logiweb.eu/0.2/0.2.3/download/logiweb-0.2.3-1.fc11.src.rpm HTML URL: http://logiweb.eu/0.2/0.2.3/download/rpm.html Mirror: http://logiweb.imm.dtu.dk/0.2/0.2.3/download/rpm.html Mirror: http://topps.diku.dk/logiweb/0.2/0.2.3/download/rpm.html > Please reread ... https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ... Thanks for the pointer. That version is clearer than any version I have read. It took a while to do everything stated in the guidelines. I hope I did it right. I was in doubt whether or not the build system transferred %{optflags} to CFLAGS automatically. So in %build I wrote make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="%{optflags}" I hope that is the right way to do it. Section 1.4 of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines says: > No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries > ... > Exceptions > * Some software (usually related to compilers or cross-compiler > environments) cannot be built without the use of a previous > toolchain or development environment (open source). If you have > a package which meets this criteria, contact the Fedora Packaging > Committee for approval. The exception above exactly fits the logiweb package. The logiweb package contains a file named src/pages.c which is a binary file sent through 'xxd -i'. The binary file is the lgc-compiler compiled by the lgc-compiler. The 'previous toolchain' is Logiweb version 0.1 which is implemented in clisp. Shall I contact the Fedora Packaging Committee at this point or is that too early? -- 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