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: xxdiff https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436677 ------- Additional Comments From thomas.moschny@xxxxxx 2008-05-10 16:01 EST ------- (In reply to comment #16) > I think the CFLAGS are correctly set now (with the help of some sed commands) Seems to work. If upstream is still active, it would be good to ask them to support passing additional compilation flags. See also http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PatchUpstreamStatus, which meanwhile got accepted, if I understand correctly. > Removed python from xxdiff requires (my bad was on the list of things to fix). Ok. Please also remove "Requires: python" from the -tools subpackage; rpm will bring in python(abi) and /usr/bin/python requirements automagically (tested). Furthermore, as fc7, f8 and f9 all have qt >= 3.3, you can drop the "qt >= 3.2" requirement. rpm automatically adds libqt-mt.so.3 as a requirement. > The python_sitelib stuff was driving me crazy, it was always coming up as > /usr/lib/etc even on the 64 bit platform. But this is intentional, and exactly the difference between %python_sitearch and %python_sitelib. As xxdiff-tools only contains architecture-independent scripts (no compiled stuff), %python_sitelib (i.e. /usr/lib) is just fine, please use that. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#head-875cc97c2232a5b3ceda75ea41eed525da7d3929 . There's another thing I totally forgot, and which I should have mentioned earlier (sorry about that): we need a .desktop file as xxdiff is an application with a gui. It's not that complicated, see #426611#c4 for an example. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review