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=471575 --- Comment #8 from Fabian Affolter <fabian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-19 09:50:38 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > Oops, to late... I've done bug 470066 in a more formal manner, and put remarks > on bug 470547 and bug 470155 Just to be clear, I'm not a sponsor but I can help you with this package. It was just a suggestion about the reviews without any further investigation on your work. (In reply to comment #6) > - In my case, the spec file is part of the source tree, living in the same > svn repo as the source. I have actually thought about this... which > doesn't mean I'm sure. But to me it seems reasonable to use the svn > version in this case, since spec and source is always in sync. Or? More about the release tag, see below. > - Auto(re)conf needs the gettext m4 macros in gettext-devel I just quoted the guidelines. So, you are right. (In reply to comment #7) > - Trying to find a balance in when to define macros I have > removed %pkg and %pkgdatadir, but kept %schemadir, %plugindir and > %download_url. If you insist, I'll remove them. But I feel they make > things a better e. g., by making the scriptlets a bit more more concise. > And personally, I avoid source lines > 72 chars; hence %download_url I can live with that. Spec files are just easier to read for other packages when only 'standard' macros are used. > - And still svn-based revision. I'm not stubborn, but a little interested > what the arguments are in a situation when the spec file release is the > same as the source release... The reasons to stick to svn # are obvious, > but I don't have to complete picture. I think that your release is a post release. The naming guidelines have some examples. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages "Release: The initial value of the release should normally be "1%{?dist}". Then, increment the number every time you release a new package for the same version of software. If a new version of the software being packaged is released, the version number should be changed to reflect the new software version, and the release number should be reset to 1." >From my point of view the release tag should look like this Release: 1.%{svnversion}svn%{?dist} > http://downloads.sourceforge.net/dt-contacts/libnautilus-vcards-48M.spec This way the name of the spec file didn't match the guidelines. I'm not an expert on exceptions. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name -- 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