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=576591 --- Comment #2 from Nikola Pajkovsky <npajkovs@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-04-05 11:09:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Okay, you has of course informed upstream IPTraf about the fork? > > Comments on the spec: > > %configure --enable-shared=no --enable-static=yes > > > Why? > Fedora tend to do the reverse. I know. I have it this issue in my TODO. Originaly iptraf is built with "support" library and it has never been shipped. It's used as helper to build gui in console and it is linked statically. This option say to autotools to not generate *.so files. > > rm -rf Documentation/.xvpics > > If your are upstream maintainer this could be remove in the tarball? > Yes it is done in git repo and it will be removed with next release.(I've made note for myself in spec) > mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/logrotate.d/ > cp %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/logrotate.d/iptraf > > Change to > install -D -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc/logrotate.d/iptraf > Fixed. > %attr(755,root,root) %{_prefix}/bin/* > > Remove %attr and, use bindir macro and list explicit. > > %{_mandir}/*/* > > Not so general please. Fixed. > > %dir %attr(644,root,root) %config(noreplace) /etc/logrotate.d/iptraf > > Drop %attr, %dir seems wrong. > Fixed. > - Initialization build > > I leave that to a native speaker. I don't get it. New spec and srpm: spec: http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng.spec srpm: http://npajkovs.fedorapeople.org/iptraf-ng-1.0.2-2.fc14.src.rpm -- 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