Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464171 --- Comment #5 from Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-01 13:00:35 EDT --- Thanks for the update and for filing those bug reports. Please keep track of them and update your package in the future. The package is in pretty good shape but yet I have two issues. 1) The debuginfo guidelines at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Debuginfo say that one can disable the debuginfo package if it does not contain arch-specific files but the package itself is not noarch because of the installation path it uses. As for now the debuginfo package is empty and there is no need to ship it. Please disable it and put a comment in the spec file. 2) The naming of the package kind-of bugs me. There is already a gedit-plugins package which is the official plugins package. The website of gedit also has links to 3rd party plugins ( http://live.gnome.org/Gedit/Plugins ) and the LaTeX plugin is one of the 3rd party plugins. A quick "yum search plugin" showed me there are both foo-plugin-bar foo-bar-plugin types of plugin packages in Fedora. But since there already is a gedit-plugins package should we consider to have this package as gedit-plugin-latex or gedit-plugin-LaTeX ; OR if you want to keep the original name for the plugin how about gedit-LaTeXPlugin? The documentation gives you some freedom for this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28General.29 I leave this up to you but my vote would be for gedit-LaTeXPlugin . -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review