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=749132 Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> 2011-11-08 13:44:59 EST --- Your 3 reviews look good and thorough. Thankyou. (In reply to comment #11) > Hi. > > Here are updated spec and source rpm. > Spec URL: http://rocha.web.cern.ch/rocha/fedora/dpm-dsi.spec > SRPM URL: http://rocha.web.cern.ch/rocha/fedora/dpm-dsi-1.8.2-2.src.rpm > > All fixed apart from: > > * LD_LIBRARY_PATH (would i be able to leave this one? it simplifies life for a > couple more months, or i can use a patch in the Fedora packaging) As discussed offline wrapping these statements with if [ -d /opt/lcg/lib ] ; then do what ever then I am happy. better still is a patch in the .spec file. Please do this before you import. > * no-documentation in dpm-dsi-devel: this was introduced by removing the %doc > from that rpm. It depends on dpm-dsi, so if i understood correctly the %doc is > not needed - i must be doing something strange to still get it This is fine, it's only a warning and is negated by the fact you pull in the main package. It's mainly a warning for you to check if there is any sensible documentation that should have included. Sources now match: $ diff -r --brief dpm-dsi-1.8.2 ../SPECS/dpm-dsi-1.8.2/ I think we are there. PACKAGE APPROVED -- 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