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: glibc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225806 ------- Additional Comments From tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-04-04 10:50 EST ------- OK, just revisiting this. Only one change didn't make it in: --- glibc.spec.BAD 2008-04-04 10:43:37.000000000 -0400 +++ glibc.spec 2008-04-04 10:48:06.000000000 -0400 @@ -1,6 +1,5 @@ %define glibcdate 20080328T1347 -%define glibcname glibc -%define glibcsrcdir glibc-20080328T1347 +%define glibcsrcdir glibc-%{glibcdate} %define glibc_release_tarballs 0 %define run_glibc_tests 1 %define auxarches i586 i686 athlon sparcv9v sparc64v alphaev6 @@ -38,8 +37,8 @@ Source1: %(echo %{glibcsrcdir} | sed s/g Source2: %(echo %{glibcsrcdir} | sed s/glibc-/glibc-libidn-/).tar.bz2 %define glibc_release_unpack -a1 -a2 %endif -Source3: %{glibcname}-fedora-%{glibcdate}.tar.bz2 -Patch0: %{glibcname}-fedora.patch +Source3: %{name}-fedora-%{glibcdate}.tar.bz2 +Patch0: %{name}-fedora.patch Patch1: %{name}-ia64-lib64.patch Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Obsoletes: glibc-profile < 2.4 Basically, there is no longer a need for a "%{glibcname}" macro, since %{name} serves that purpose. Also, we should use %{glibcdate} when defining %{glibcsrcdir}. Aside from this change, everything else (while somewhat complex), looks ok. Once I see that change go into rawhide CVS, I'll sign off on this review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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