Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pekwm - Light weight window manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210087 ------- Additional Comments From miker5slow@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-10-10 13:08 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > There are some BR (BuildRequires) that may be missing: > > libpng-devel libXinerama-devel libjpeg-devel > > Did you check the link flags in mock? > No, how do I check that? What I did was went to the src dir and did a grep for includes. The one for xinerama came from X11/extensions/Xinerama.h so I did an rpmquery -f on /usr/include/X11/extensions/Xinerama.h and found it was provided by xorg-x11-proto-devel-7.0-6 I guess I just over looked the jpeg and png header files. > Why don't you enable pcre? No reason, I guess I should build with all the options I guess? > in files, you should have > %dir %{_datadir}/%{name} > otherwise the things within that dir are listed twice. Ah ok, I wondered why that was happening > Are the > --x-includes=%{_includedir} \ > --x-libraries=%{_libdir} \ > really needed? No I guess not, but thats how the fluxbox package is done so I followed suit. > Could you expand a bit on --sysconfdir=%{_datadir} > That seems a bit strange... Yes, before doing this it would put all these files into /etc/pekwm and they really had no place there. rpmlint was complaining about it, and they seem to be better placed in /usr/share/pekwm to me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review