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=567257 --- Comment #10 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-03-20 21:48:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) > - So I am talking about "if all currently supported...." item, and are > you really considering EPEL? ( menu-cache does not even exist on > EL-5 so I don't think you really care for EPEL. Also I am against > that we should consider EPEL version dependency "by default" ) Yes, I intend bringing LXDE to EPEL (if possible). menu-cache shouldn't be a problem. > - But you don't repeat the description written in "main" package on > the rest -devel packages (and I think the description should not > be repeated). I think devel packages are different, they are not important to users. If somebody installs the devel packages, he already knows what libfm is. > I don't see any reason why you want to repeat the description on > -gtk package when -gtk package depends on main package. Why does it make a difference if the -gtk package depends on the base package? It is not important in the context of the description. Is there a benefit if i removed the first part of the description? "This package provides useful file manager-related GTK+ widgets." would be a little sparse. > * Directory ownership issue fixed. > > * Desktop file fixed. I updated the spec last week just before my LXDE talk @ CLT and obviously I was in a hurry and not very careful. New files: http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/libfm.spec http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/libfm-0.1.9-2.fc14.src.rpm > ? By the way do you intend to install libfm only for F-13+ (as F-12 menu-cache > does not satisfy the dependency)? menu-cache is itself is not a blocker, I could push 0.3.2 also to F-12. However I have no intentions to do this ATM because - there were incompatible API changes from 0.3.0 to 0.3.1 - there was an soname bump from 0.3.1 to 0.3.2 to indicate the API changes - only the new pcmanfm depends on libfm and I doubt you want to push a new major version to a stable release. It's on you to decide because you own pcmanfm. To me it is more important to have pcmanfm 1.0 in F13. Currently I'm using pcmanfm 0.9.3 and it is very stable. ATM it is still called pcmanfm2, so it can be installed in parallel to the old pcmanfm. There already is a patch to rename it back to the original name. Should we push it to F13 and if so, under which name? I would prefer using pcmanfm because the final version is scheduled for April. We could even go with 0.9.4 (beta 2) and update after release of F13. What do you think? -- 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