Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnucash - personal finance management https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222388 ------- Additional Comments From notting@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-01-18 12:26 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8) > >> 9. It looks like the docs aren't released for each main gnucash release. > >> Perhaps it would make sense to split them into a gnucash-docs package? > >> That would save people 10MB of update when just gnucash was updated. > > > >Not sure how it helps when you have the main package always requiring gnucash- > docs. > > Well, for instance if you have Requires: gnucash-docs = 2.0.1 now, you > can upgrade the main package without needing docs updates until the next > time they update the docs. I don't know how often upstream updates the > main package without the docs also being updated however, so this might > not be worth the trouble. Hm, possibly. Let me see how much pain it is to split, shouldn't be too much. > A few additional items: > > - There is a 'Requires: qbanking'. Nothing currently provides that... > Should that be 'aqbanking'? Any particular version? See currently-under-review aqbanking package - it's split off. > - Oddly the changes you made in the rpath disabling seem to have fixed > whatever I was seeing with the smp_mflags not working. This cuts buildtime > here from about 70min to about 23min. Can you confirm adding smp_mflags > works now? I'll need to test - I've still seen errors where the guile bindings/C libraries get out of sync and fail. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review