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=736861 --- Comment #2 from Mads Kiilerich <mads@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-09-10 05:14:29 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) Thanks for the quick response. > Please inform upstream on the wrong address. https://www.logilab.org/ticket/75295 > Use the name macro in Source0 and the files section. I don't fully agree with that. I used explicit "hgview" where it didn't refer to the package name or upstream tar name. I don't think this increased use of %{name} increases the readability or flexibility of the spec. But ok ... > BuildRequires and Requires are separated by spaces, not commas. Even better: > Put each on a separate line. Yes, that is another way of doing it, but I don't see any requirement/preference for that in the Packaging Guidelines. FWIW http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package and http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/RPM_Guide/ch-specfile-syntax.html describe it as a comma-separated list. It would be great of the guidelines could help making it more consistent. > Drop the version constraint for PyQt4. All possible build targets have a > version new enough. Ok. > The version restriction for Mercurial should probably go to > the BRs as well, so the package won't build. This build time dependency is bogus and isn't really used, so I assume it would work with all future versions of Mercurial. https://www.logilab.org/ticket/75296 Spec URL: http://kiilerix.fedorapeople.org/hgview.spec SRPM URL: http://kiilerix.fedorapeople.org/hgview-1.3.0-2.fc15.src.rpm -- 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