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 #14 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> 2010-08-06 10:33:04 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) > This patch is already sent to upstream OK, fine. > the function for patch is fix-64bit-compilation.patch(original libaccounts-qt can't build on 64bit arch) Yes, I know. :) But you should also add this information to the spec file as a short comment, e.g. something like this: "This patch fixes a compilation error related to type ambiguities, and increases Accounts::AccountId to a 64bit integer to make the package build on 64bit archs." > 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. I tend to disagree here. Many library packages called libFOO place their include files in %{_includedir}/FOO and keep the docs in %{_docdir}/libFOO* (because they are added with %doc), even if "make install" put them somewhere else by default. Since nearly all docs go to a folder called like the package, I would keep this concept for libaccounts-qt as well. Otherwise, this inconsistency might confuse the user who expects the docs in %{_docdir}/%{name}*, especially as there's already such a folder containing the license. > 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 That might be a good idea. But this should probably be discussed on the devel/packaging list(s) to get feedback from all involved packagers. -- 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