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=759712 --- Comment #5 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-12-16 16:02:36 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) > I respectfully disagree with changing the macro-in-comment warnings as they are > in comments copied directly from the existing gcc-python-plugin spec, and > doubled percent signs might be confusing to anyone trying to actually > understand the comments. I'd rather have the rpmlint warnings. However, if > you really feel strongly that those warnings have to be fixed, let me know, and > I'll do it. What I feel strongly about is that the rpm developers should fix their code so that rpm doesn't expand macros in comments. :-) As long as those macros don't cause any actual problems (and I did not notice any), then I am fine with leaving the comments as they are. > LLVM is supported on i386 and x86_64, which are the current Fedora Primary > Architectures. The Fedora llvm package spec excludes use of ocaml on s390, > s390x, and sparc64, but does not exclude those or any other architectures. > While I have a hard time believing that LLVM will work on all of the Fedora > Secondary Architectures, if the LLVM spec doesn't exclude them I don't think > the DragonEgg spec needs to either. That's fine. The DragonEgg spec should definitely follow the llvm spec in this regard. I just wasn't sure if the llvm spec had any ExcludeArch tags, and was too lazy to go look. -- 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