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