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=569204 Jan Klepek <jan.klepek@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jan.klepek@xxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Jan Klepek <jan.klepek@xxxxxx> 2010-02-28 17:57:48 EST --- (feel free to add me as co-maintainer) how do you address following issues? 1] licensing issues [1] 2] there is no need for shared libraries, they are not intended to be used outside of rt afaik. 3] patches lacks comment if it was sent to upstream / or what is id in upstream bugtracker, those patches are not fedora specific. [3] 4] did you consider using patches from ( or as source for tarfile ) following repo which address (almost) all building issues? [2] 5] options file is configuration file it has to reside in /etc (otherwise it breaks FHS) [4] 6] could you please point to koji build for rt? I remember there was issue with debuginfo packages for rawtherapee. Are they created correctly now? 7] why binaries are renamed? Is there any conflict in filenames with any other existing package? If there is no conflict, it could create confusion for users of older version of this software (where my rtstart (or rt) command disappeared?) [1] http://code.google.com/p/rawtherapee/issues/detail?id=16 [2] http://repo.or.cz/w/rawtherapee-fixes.git [3] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment [4] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Filesystem_Layout -- 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