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=641188 --- Comment #5 from Parag AN(àààà) <panemade@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-10-12 20:43:35 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #1) > > Suggestions:- > > > > 1) I see this package includes versioned BuildRequires. Can you add some > > comments why is it needed to have versioned BR: ? > > I think as we used to first build required build dependencies in required > > release, there should not be any need to write versions. > > At least the gtk3 version is somewhat useful, as the package won't build > against 2.90.x > Ok. If you need it you can keep it. But please remove others. > > > this package added > > Obsoletes: gnome-applets-devel < 1:2.21.4-1 > > Huh ? I see no Obsoletes in the spec. There it happens mismatch. Sometimes it happens srpm contains some other spec and SPEC url shows some other spec contents. I can still see obsoletes in spec packaged in srpm. I see no issues then as it looks spec url shows no obsoletes. > > > 3) Is there any bug reference for Patch0: ? > > No, its the same patch that is in the libgweather package Ok, but good if some bug reference would have given for that patch. > > > 4) Please we have got updated Gconf2 scriptlet snippet. Good to use that. See > > True > > > > 5) Any reason to turn off verbose output in %posttrans? > > People complain if scriptlets are verbose But good to make it verbose so that people can see if anything goes wrong in executing that scriptlet. If you still think -q should be used then no problem use it. -- 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