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=700815 --- Comment #11 from Kalev Lember <kalev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-05-23 11:58:22 EDT --- Thanks Tom. (In reply to comment #10) > I had a quick look and it looks fine to me. You don't want to use the > %{mingw_pkg_name} macro? Yes, that's right, I don't particularly like the %{mingw_pkg_name} macro name, it's just way too long and verbose. %{pkg_name} or %{name1} (like you've used in many places) would be much more readable. Besides, the current ("old") example spec file uses the literal name everywhere and not the %{mingw_pkg_name} macro. Compare yourself: %files -n mingw32-gtk3 %files -n mingw32-%{mingw_pkg_name} > Also, the new package naming scheme causes the debuginfo package to be named > mingw-gtk3-debuginfo versus the old mingw32-gtk3-debuginfo. I don't think this > is an issue, but I may be overlooking something. Yeah, that's my concern too. I'm planning to take a look at the -debuginfo subpackage generating macros soon to see if it's possible to make them nicer. I'm pretty confident that I can get rid of the need to manually insert %{?_mingw32_debug_package} in every spec file. I'm thinking of having per-arch subpackages (mingw32-debuginfo and mingw64-debuginfo) which are controlled by magical defines ('%define mingw32_debug_package 1' and '%define mingw64_debug_package 1'). -- 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