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=612174 --- Comment #9 from David Sommerseth <davids@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-15 11:12:21 EDT --- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dsommers/eurephia/eurephia.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/dsommers/eurephia/eurephia-1.0.0-7.fc12.src.rpm Thanks again! (In reply to comment #8) > Don't hardcode the version number in the intra-package Requires - use macros. > It will be so much simpler to update to newer versions that way. And a "fully > qualified version" is %{version}-%{release} not only %{version}. Ahh, I didn't know this. Fixed! > The eurephia-iptables package still has "Requires: eurephia" without version Fixed! > The %{_libdir}/eurephia directory should be in the eurephia-sqlite3 package and > not in the main eurephia package, since eurephia depends on eurephia-sqlite3 > but not the other way. > > The %{_datadir}/eurephia directory should be in the eurephia-admin package and > not in the main eurephia package. The main package does not install files > there, but the eurephia-admin does and the eurephia-admin has no dependency on > the main package. Yeah, I actually expected you to say this. I've changed it according to your requirements, and I see I will need to rethink this a little bit later on. More database drivers will come in the future and they will all go into %{_libdir}/eurephia. A web-based admin utility is being planned, which will use %{_datadir}/eurephia/ as well. So that's the reason for my way of thinking. But when not looking into the future now, I do agree to your comments. -- 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