[Bug 447368] Review Request: schroot - Execute commands in a chroot environment

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=447368





--- Comment #6 from Zach Carter <z.carter@xxxxxx>  2008-11-06 13:47:50 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I don't feel competent to fully review this package but I can make a few
> comments:

thanks :)

> You shouldn't duplicate all of those %doc files between the various
> subpackages.

will fix.

> 
> I'm curious as to which guideline you believe mandates that you split off the
> libsbuild package.  Generally library splits are only required to prevent
> multilib conflicts, but I don't believe this is a multilib package.  (For one
> thing, it has no -devel subpackage.)

I can't find it anymore, but I was pretty sure it existed.   I'll change it
back.

>   schroot.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/schroot 
>    ['/usr/lib64']
> These are problematic.

I'll fix these.

> The tarball seems to include a large amount of doxygen-generated documentation.
>  Is that of any use to end-users?  If so it should probably be packaged,
> although a subpackage might be useful.

It looks mostly like developer docs, indexed source code, etc.  I would think
developers would probably have downloaded the source code anyway, so I'm not
sure how useful it would be to individual users.

-- 
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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]