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=705043 --- Comment #4 from Veeti Paananen <veeti.paananen@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-06-15 21:15:56 EDT --- I realized something yesterday - I had completely ignored the "gpaco" GUI frontend included in paco. So I started tinkering around with subpackages (using the existing cmake package as an example), and added a "paco-gui" subpackage to the spec. So the newest files can be found here: SPEC: http://rojekti.fi/files/paco/3/paco.spec SRPM: http://rojekti.fi/files/paco/3/paco-2.0.9-3.fc15.src.rpm (Better late than never, right?) I'm not completely sure about the subpackage's name: should it be paco-gui or gpaco (as the actual executable is called gpaco)? In addition, I've patched the license file to fix the FSF address error, and there's also another patch there to make the gpaco.desktop file more compliant. I've e-mailed the author about those. And that's not all - I've also fixed a line in the %files section that was causing some dependency problems with i686 builds. Thanks to Rex and Kevin for their help in the devel mailing list! Here's the latest rpmlint output straight out of the oven: [veeti@veeti-pc SPECS]$ rpmlint paco.spec paco.spec:20: W: configure-without-libdir-spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Same as before - false positive (?) from the package description. [veeti@veeti-pc x86_64]$ rpmlint paco-2.0.9-3.fc15.x86_64.rpm paco.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libpaco-log.so.0.0.0 exit@xxxxxxxxxxx paco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ocap 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [veeti@veeti-pc x86_64]$ rpmlint paco-gui-2.0.9-3.fc15.x86_64.rpm paco-gui.x86_64: W: no-documentation paco-gui.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gpaco 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. -- 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