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=541524 --- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-16 16:11:17 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > Fedora Review a2jmidid 2010-07-15 > Thank you for the review! > The build uses the bundles waf that comes in the package rather than the > system waf provided by the waf package - any reason for that? > > I can't find and guidelines about waf and bundling, the only thing I > found was this thread on the packaging mailing list, which seems to > favour using the system waf - but the discussion doesn't seen to have > to have ended up in any written guidelines: > > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2009-February/005722.html > There are a few reasons: - Since there is no guideline about waf, it is left up to the maintainer's decision. - Adding a BR will add at least 1 extra build dependency, which is not needed really. - I am not an expert, but as far as I can tell, waf is not backwards compatible. Just replace ./waf with waf in the specfile and you will get bunch of errors. I worked around some of them, but stopped at some point since this is not a necessity. SPEC: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/a2jmidid.spec SRPM: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/a2jmidid-6-3.fc13.src.rpm ChangeLog: - Fix license tag -- 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