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=466737 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-16 00:01:38 EDT --- A few comments: Why would you need to define _default_patch_fuzz for a new package? It seems that at least the initial package should have patches which apply cleanly. matio-1.3.3-fortanpath.patch seems to lack an 'r'. There are a few commented-out bits I don't quite understand: #sed -i.fortranpath2 -e 's|src/fortran/matio_t.inc|src/matio_t.inc|' configure.ac configure Is this made unnecessary by the .fortranpath2 patch? #To disable rpath #./bootstrap Not sure why this is in there. What's the doxygen bit for? Did you just not want to ship the pdf file? (Nothing would require doing that, and if you're not going to ship it then it makes sense not to generate it, but a comment about why might help.) The need to move the source files (and the patches you have to carry to support that) just because rpm doesn't generate debuginfo properly is troubling. It's certainly OK if you want to do that, but I wonder if the problem is fully understood. Is there a bug open against rpm for this issue? I'll finish this review up tomorrow. -- 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