https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685 --- Comment #16 from Ranjan Maitra <itsme_410@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #15) > Any update? > > Open issues with *-2: > * [MUSTFIX] Not building against external sylpheed > - Missing "BuildRequires: sylpheed-devel" > - Pass --with-libsylph=sylpheed instead of --with-libsylph=builtin > to %configure Why is this a MUSTFIX? Building against sylpheed will mean requiring the package for installation. It reduces the package size from 91k to 46k which is not much, however, requiring sylpheed for someone who does not intend to use sylpheed for this purpose would increase his/her pulled-in RPM size by 7.8M (which is what sylpheed's RPM is). As I said, it does not affect me personally, but is this something we want to do? Nevertheless, I have done what you have suggested. Not sure if it is a good idea. > > * [MUSTFIX] no *-devel subpackage Will have to fix this: first have to find how to do this. > * [MUSTFIX] *.la are not removed. > Add > rm ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_libdir}/*.la > to %install done (after %make_install) > * The DESTDIR=... is redundant in > "%make_install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" > "%make_install" already adds DESTDIR > > * Useless define: %define ver 0.8 I don't understand this one. New files uploaded: SPEC: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter.spec SRPM: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter-0.8-3.fc23.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review