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=461131 --- Comment #36 from Pavel Alexeev <pahan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-03 18:59:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #34) > (In reply to comment #33) > %{?dist} is missing !!!! Thank you very much!! > I think not, it should be picked automatically using the soname. Ok. > > > The checkout instructions are not enough, you should add the command > > > that allows you to do the archive. > > It seems excessive, but I'm add this. > > You can do make dist, or tar directly, it should be possible to > redo exactly like you. Also it may be possible to recreate configure > offline. > > > > You install icons, so it is likely that a post script is missing. > > What script you keep in mind? > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#GTK.2B_icon_cache Link is very usefull. Thanks again. I'm add icon update instructions. > It could. And besides this spec is not only for fedora, it is better > if it is reusable, be it only in EPEL. And it is at best unuseful. I'm do not firstly positioning this for any besides Fedora. Well, I'll have this on record. > Maybe, but it isn't used during the build? If it is used, I think > it is much better to call autoconf/automake/autoreconf explicitly. It is used from make -f admin/Makefile.common after %setup admin/Makefile.common is upstream file, so I not see any reason copy/past content of it into spec. > > > I also thought that zip was there too, but I am too lazy to check. > > No, zip is not. See report about it before in this review. > > Oh, unzip is there but not zip. Do you really need zip during > build? This check zip in ./configure, and fails if it is not present. Please, see buildlog with this report, if you want more details. > It is not written, but rpm uses sonames for library dependencies, > which means that you should never have to put library packages > requires explicitly. openssl package also provides few binaries, AFAIK. > Another suggestion, > #Rm symlink, which seems as development. > should certainly be rephrased as something like > # rm symlink since we don't support developping with sim Ok. I hope build it. -- 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