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=575235 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-03-24 12:41:04 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Initial notes - > > Looking at the overall structure of the package I wonder if the skf binary > would be better as skf-cli and skf-common as just skf? - I want to make "yum install skf" install /usr/bin/skf binary. > Either that or perhaps moving the more verbose %description and generic Summary > of the -common package onto the main skf package? Users may have trouble seeing > how useful it is without reading the -common description. - Well, usually I say "please don't duplicate description when the other dependency package already contains the same description", however it seems you and also at least one person are against my opinion. However for now I won't duplicate the same sentence on main package. > Can't see this matching anything: > > sed -i.strip -e 's|-s -m |-m |' Makefile.in > > --- > > As the skf.1 man page pertains to the binary I'm guessing it should go with it > in the package. > > --- - Both of these are fixed in -2, thank you. http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/skf/skf-1.97.0-0.2.a.fc.src.rpm http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/skf/skf.spec * Thu Mar 25 2010 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.97.0-0.2.a - Remove useless sed line - Move man pages to "main" package -- 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