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=809114 Mohamed El Morabity <pikachu.2014@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Mohamed El Morabity <pikachu.2014@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-04-04 05:53:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > > - %clean section, as well as buildroot cleaning in %install and the BuildRoot > > tag, is useless too: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag > > I'll probably leave this in as I'd like to build this for EPEL-5 It's OK :) > Novacom is a separate review (as they have separate upstreams) and is available > at bug 809116. I will review it too. > I have wondered whether it would make sense to package novacomd as > novacom-server, novacom as novacom-client and have a metapackage, novacom, that > installs both. What do you think? I'd let the original names for each package, as recommended by the guidelines, and add a Requires on novacomd in the novacom package, since the client cannot work without the service. If novacom and novacomd were available from the same source, I'd even package it as a single RPM. (In reply to comment #3) > If you also could include icon and .desktop file for novaterm. > > Something like: > > > [Desktop Entry] > Version=1.0 > Name=Novaterm > Comment=Novaterm for command line access to WebOS device > Exec=/home/pliszka/palm/novacom/novaterm > Icon=/home/pliszka/icons/Palm_logo_2003.svg > Terminal=true > Type=Application > Categories=Own; This comment is rather relative to the novacom package. I don't think providing a desktop file for novaterm is worthy since novacom is clearly described as a set of command-line tools. -- 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