[Bug 772504] Review Request: btkbdd - Software bluetooth keyboard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=772504

--- Comment #3 from Volker Fröhlich <volker27@xxxxxx> 2012-01-09 08:26:17 EST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Thank you for your suggestions. Here are the updated packages:
> 
> SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/btkbdd.spec
> SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/btkbdd-1.1-2.el6.src.rpm
> 
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > I think the package summary does not describe the package very well. The
> > description gave me a completely different view.
> 
> What view did it give you? I can't really think of a better description and
> would appreciate help here.
> 

The way you put it now sounds a lot better to me! :)

> > Defattr is no longer necessary. If you're not going for EPEL 5, you can drop
> > the clean section, buildroot definition and the rm in the install section.
> 

(Defattr is not necessary for EPEL 5 either.)

> I choose not to break compatibility with el5 rebuilds for packages that rebuild
> cleanly. As it gets more obsolete, I'll remove those parts.
> 
> > Please use the name macro, as you did in Source. Looking at your manpage, you
> > forgot a "d" in %{_localstatedir}/lib/btkbd.
> 
> The manpage was actually wrong (the example udev rules wrote to
> /var/lib/btkbd). However, it makes more sense with two "d"s, so I adjusted that
> appropriately.
> 
> > There's a macro called sharedstatedir, by the way, that is equivalent to
> > %{_localstatedir}/lib.
> 
> This would break el5 builds:
> 
> $ rpm --eval %_sharedstatedir
> /usr/com
> 
Ah, I wasn't aware of that.

> > The FSF address is outdated.
> 
> Changed that to <http://fsf.org>, which seems to be used in GPLv3.

No, I meant the postal address. They moved from Temple Place to Franklin Street
in 2005.

> > Why do you want to own %{_sysconfdir}/udev/rules.d?
> 
> That was a mistake. Removed it.
> 
> > Why do you require pod2man explicitly?
> 
> I choose to :)
> 
> It is not intuitively obvious (to me) that it is part of perl, nor that it
> won't change in future or that perl will stay in build group forever. Though
> all of that is unlikely, I like it to be specified explicitly.

I tried your software but messed up somehow. Let's see if I can get it working
for me! :)

-- 
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



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]