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=567086 --- Comment #5 from Mario Ceresa <mrceresa@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-03-10 08:42:10 EST --- Hello Chen Lei! thanks for your quick response. I'm sorry to say that I still don't catch what you want me to change in the spec file. Please be patient: English is not my mother tongue so there might be some subtleties that confounds me. Let's make an example: #Example starts here# [from vxl.spec] %package devel Summary: Headers for VXL library Group: Development/Libraries Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} %description devel You should install this package if you would like to develop code based on VXL. [end vxl.spec] [from glibc.spec] %package xen Summary: The GNU libc libraries (optimized for running under Xen) Group: System Environment/Libraries Requires: glibc = %{version}-%{release}, glibc-utils = %{version}-%{release} %description xen The standard glibc package is optimized for native kernels and does not perform as well under the Xen hypervisor. This package provides alternative library binaries that will be selected instead when running under Xen. Install glibc-xen if you might run your system under the Xen hypervisor. [end glibc.spec] #End of example# As devel is a subpackage of vxl I added %description devel to create vxl-devel package. Then I added some descriptive info. I would appreciate very much if you could rewrite the part of my example between [from vxl.spec] - [end vxl.spec] to show me the change you have in mind, so I can see what I'm missing. Sorry if it seems a stupid question. On the other hand, on the library side, I'll be very happy to review any vxl related lib that you might try to package, and help with adding them to vxl. The only think that I'd like to ask is that, if the time required to package them all would be considerable, we go on with the review for this subset only of vxl and file later bugs requiring more functionalities. I don't know if this could be a viable solution but it seems to me an acceptable compromise between blocking indefinitely the InsightToolkit review and packaging many scientific libs. I would love to hear what you think about this point. Thanks for your time and best regards Mario -- 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