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=521909 --- Comment #3 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-24 07:15:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > A few comments about the spec file: > > - Tabs aren't aligned properly Tabs aligned properly. Just you use another tab with (see first post). > - I'm not sure about this comment: > # It still required for EPEL5 > BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > > BuildRoot is required on Fedora too or do I miss something? Yes BuildRoot is obsoleted for Fedora. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag > - What about this comment (line 15)? > #Requires: This is atavism. Deleted. > - You should write a patch instead of using sed here: > # Hack to correct install on 64-bit systems. > sed -i ... > > sed will return 0/no error if it substitutes something or even does nothing but > patch will fail if it cannot be applied. With a patch you are on the save side. Yes, there sed behavior is preferred. 1) We must be conditionally apply patch only on 64-bit systems. 2) sed always replace in this string, even if "lib" to "lib". So, it is normal. > - The example package only contains 7 CPP files. Maybe you want to pack them > into the main package as docs too? What do you think? For what? Especially when work to split it was done. > - I guess it is a typo in the Changelog > Fix installation on 54-bit systems. > > should be > > Fix installation on 64-bit systems. Off course. Thank 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