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=537587 --- Comment #13 from Nathanael Noblet <nathanael@xxxxxxx> 2009-11-17 19:00:33 EDT --- Updated version info as per the naming guidelines. http://www.gnat.ca/dspam.spec http://www.gnat.ca/dspam-3.9.0-0.1.BETA4.fc12.src.rpm Nothing has changes except the version number. About all the conditionals. I can remove them if required. However upstream would like to stay in sync with this rpm package, so was hoping we could keep the conditionals in there incase someone wanted to get the srpm and build with some conditionals to get a different package. Originally the spec file had one default of not building any of the sub packages. It has now been setup with the most sensible defaults allowing users to pick their backend storage on fedora. If the conditionals are a problem (I looked and saw nothing in the guidelines about it). I can remove them, however as stated above upstream would then keep its own copy of the spec for whatever reason and fedora users that wanted to rebuild dspam with other options for whatever reason would have to hack the specfile. Let me know if conditionals like that are a no no, like I said I didn't see anything in the guidelines about it. -- 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