Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: bzip2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225633 varekova@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo? | ------- Additional Comments From varekova@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-15 10:10 EST ------- (In reply to comment #15) > Seems almost right to me, still 2 issues and some suggestions: > > * remove 'static library' from the -devel package description > since there is no static library The static library was put back becouse of rpm package need it so - the description should remain too. > * the original soname don't follow the usual convention of a soname > number with an integer, but I am not certain that it is right to > modify it in fedora. It should better be changed upstream. What is > the reasoning behind this change? It is the upstream resolution so fedora should accept it > * remove the / between $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and macros, like %{_mandir}, > %{_libdir}... since they allready have a leading / fixed > * for %patch6, maybe it could be > %patch6 -p1 -b .bzip2recover changed > A remark: > > * I completely agree with the new organization of the spec with build in > %build and install in %install, I would have asked for that the next round > anyway ;-) the last version is bzip2-1.0.4-8.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review