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=509160 --- Comment #14 from Björn Persson <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-26 19:04:46 EST --- (In reply to comment #12) > >> It's weird that it doesn't touch %{SOURCE3} during %prep or %build. it only shows up in %install... > >It seemed a bit silly to copy the file in two steps when one step worked just > >as well, but if it's more future-proof, then I'll do it that way. > > I don't see any guideline requiring it, it just seemed odd. > I'll leave that to your discretion, it's not a requirement. So one way seems silly to me and the other seems odd to you. Neither is a good basis for decisions. The question that matters is whether it works by design or by accident. I'll leave it as it is for now. If I find any documentation that says it shouldn't be done my way, then I will change it. > Please *add* the email conversation to the package (as a single file). Done. I also added the word "file" to the license statement in mine_detector.gpr, to clarify that that license statement covers that file only, not Mine Detector itself. I hope I've made everything perfectly clear now. > Also: Usually files given as Source: have the package name prefixed. > That way, simultaneous builds won't cause trouble. > I think you should do that; be sure to rename them back to their > expected name. OK, done. New version: http://www.rombobjörn.se/packages/mine_detector.spec http://www.rombobjörn.se/packages/mine_detector-6.0-3.fc11.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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review