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=577601 --- Comment #6 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-04-09 04:41:38 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) Thanks Rex, > macros: ok > but, you do have these for use: > %_qt4_plugindir (instead of %_qt4_prefix/plugins) > %_qt4_qmake (intead of %{_bindir}/qmake-qt4 > %_qt4_datadir/mkspecs (instead of %_qt4_prefix/mkspecs) > sure, I'll replace those. > %files: ok (but it may be worth tracking lib sonames closer , to make abi > breaks more obvious) > I'll keep an eye. > SHOULD: I'd recommend adding a > %{?_qt4_version:Requires: qt4%{?_isa} >= %{_qt4_version}} > in the main package for paranoia. you can probably drop the %{?_qt4_version > conditional, if this is going to be a fedora-only package. > :) ok. > > Pending the question about using a snapshot vs. 0.5.1, I don't see any review > blockers. Please see the original post for the answer. According to the developers, most of them are done with their work. There is one developer who needs to finish writing the documentation for certain classes. The new version will be released soon, at least that's what they say. After that, I will only go with stable release versions, unless there is a strong reason to do otherwise. -- 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