Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: GConf2-dbus - D-Bus port of GConf2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244333 jeff@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From jeff@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-06-15 23:44 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > > The obsolete and provides is still needed as we inherit from the F7 repository. > If you wish for me to version it what is the right format? GConf2 is currently at 2.18.0.1-2.fc7, so it'll need to look like: Provides: GConf2 = 2.18.0.1-3 Obsoletes: GConf2 <= 2.18.0.1-2 This will need manual updating if GConf2 is updated in F7, but is necessary if we ever want to have a GConf2 package again. > the -n after %setup is needed because if you look closely the package spits out > a GConf-%{version} directory not a GConf2-%{version} directory. We use GConf2 > in the package name to be in sync with the GConf2 package which at one time was > parallel installable with GConf. > > As for the the package URL, GConf2-dbus has not been officaly released yet. > When it does it will be merged into GConf. I have made it a seperate package > because for the forseable future one may want to choose between installing the > offical GConf2 or the embedable GConf2-dbus. For instance when I create > LiveCD's with full GNOME environments. Looks like everything else is taken care of, so if you add the versioned provides/obsoletes this is APPROVED. -- 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