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: w3m https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226535 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-27 00:46 EST ------- (In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #3) > > Created an attachment (id=150834) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=150834&action=view) [edit] [edit] > > w3m.spec with some fixes (0.5.1-18) > > > > Well, for 0.5.1-17.fc7: > > > > * Source0 > > - Please check: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL > > (A) It seems that newest gc is 6.8. > > > > * CFlags > > (Please see the attached mock build log) > > - Fedora specific compilation flags are not passed > > (for gc.a). > > For gc.a, it seems okay when ABI_FLAG is set as > > RPM_OPT_FLAGS > > And.. actually this changes debuginfo contents. > Agree. > > > (B) NOTE: > > Usually gc should be seperated from this package (w3m) > > and other packages for gc should be created. > > In this case, gc package should provide shared library > > (not static archive). > > However is this too late for F7? > Don't think so. Yes static library should be removed. What I meant here is * can you split gc tarball from w3m srpm, create gc package (with providing gc shared library) from gc tarball and have w3m use gc package before F7? * would you upgrade gc to the newest version? > > (D) Question: > > - Should all the documents in doc-jp/ files should be > > converted from EUC-JP to UTF-8? > > I think so, however, if you want to do so, please keep > > timestamps on these files even after encodings are converted, > > as these documents are 3-6 years old. > > Agree. "Agree" means that you will change Japanese documents to UTF-8 with timestamps kept as original? -- 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