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=617592 --- Comment #13 from Chen Lei <supercyper1@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-06 09:39:58 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12) > The package is almost ready. There are just a few minor things left, you should > address: > > - Add a short comment above Patch0 telling what it does. Did you send the patch > to the developer(s)? I think the changes should be applied upstream. > This patch is already sent to upstream, the function for patch is fix-64bit-compilation.patch(original libaccounts-qt can't build on 64bit arch) > - Drop the word "the" in the description of the devel package (otherwise the > sentence sounds strange to me), and preferably replace "accounts-qt" with > "libaccounts-qt" (or %{name}). > Fixed, http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1338197/1/libaccounts-qt-0.31-2.fc13.src.rpm > - As suggested in comment #5, I recommend to move the API docs to > %{_docdir}/libaccounts-qt. Using different "namespaces", i.e libaccounts-qt and > accounts-qt, for the license file and the API docs is confusing. I'd expect the > latter to be located in a folder starting with %{name}. I suggest to keep the doc directory name, because it's the default installation place for this package and this package also use accounts-qt namespace for header files and pkgconfig file. The directories for qt/kde documentation looks a bit strange for me also, maybe we should move those docs to another directory other than %{_docdir}. e.g. gtk related packages install their apidocs to %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html -- 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