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=785619 --- Comment #3 from Julio Merino <jmmv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2012-02-02 11:21:07 EST --- Hello Michel, Thanks for the review. Some answers to your questions, in no particular order: Yes, I do have a Fedora VM installation that I intend to keep. In fact, I have had it for a long time already and use it regularly for the development of Lutok, ATF, etc. The reason is that Fedora includes a more up-to-date GCC and header files than my other build platforms (NetBSD, OS X)... which does wonders in catching programming errors :-) (I.e. more warnings, strict validation of explicit includes, etc.) No, I'm not targeting RHEL, so I have removed the extra boilerplate. Regarding the tests, yes, I am planning to package ATF later. I didn't do so yet because I wanted to get started with something simpler. The package for ATF will be trickier and potentially-controversial due to file layout issues, so I'd rather sort this out later once I've got the basics of packaging straight. I have created a separate doc package to include the html files and the examples. Lastly, I have fixed the documentation issue by preventing the Makefile from installing the documents. I have also changed the package to install its documentation into a "name-version" directory instead of just "name" to prevent having both "doc/lutok" and "doc/lutok-0.1". (I was confused about the behavior of %doc, hence why I had listed the documents twice in the previous spec version.) The spec and srpm files have been updated. Please take another look and thanks in advance! -- 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