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=679401 --- Comment #6 from Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-05-20 10:44:13 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > licensing: OK > > scriptlets: OK > > naming: OK > > URL provided doesn't work for me, please find something better. Not a blocker. > > rpmlint: clean, OK > > builds/installs OK > > In a perfect world, I'd like to see comment #3 addressed too, wrt keeping > library naming more consistent, using something from trever's .spec he showed > us earlier today: > %build > echo 'yes' | \ > ./configure -library > > echo "QTSOAP_LIBNAME = \$\$qtLibraryTarget(qtsoap)" >> common.pri > echo "VERSION=%{version}" >> common.pri > > qmake-qt4 > > make %{?_smp_mflags} > > > But, I'll leave it up to you on how best to resolve that (with some potential > upstream poking). not a blocker. > > > > Otherwise, looks good, APPROVED There's no upstream anymore but I'll try to incorporate this change into my fedora qt-soap branch. Thanks for review, good spot guys. -- 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