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=680205 --- Comment #4 from Brandon McCaig <bamccaig@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-04 21:35:09 EST --- Spec URL: http://castopulence.org/rpm/allegro5/5.0.0-2/allegro5.spec SRPM URL: http://castopulence.org/rpm/allegro5/5.0.0-2/allegro5-5.0.0-2.fc13.src.rpm I've tried to address your initial remarks. I guess it's ready for round two. Not necessarily there yet, but we'll see. I reorganized the spec (I agree that it makes a lot more sense this way), split the BuildRequires (it was only so long because I didn't now how to split it xD), added explicit %{version}-%{release} dependencies on subpackages, got rid of all library dependencies (not sure I did this correctly), and fixed up some simple issues that rpmlint caught. To determine which subpackages I would merge into the core package(s) I did the following with the built RPMs: for f in $HOME/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/*; do rpm -pq --requires $f > `basename $f`.requires; done for f in allegro5-addon-*.requires; do diff -u allegro5-5.0.0-1.fc13.i386.rpm.requires $f | less; done I then examined the differences and only merged the packages that showed external differences. The only exception to that rule was leaving addon-physfs*, even though I didn't notice any differences, per your advice. I suspect that maybe I'm missing some explicit dependencies there (unless the main package somehow needs it too). We'll see... ^^ -- 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