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=426751 --- Comment #29 from Till Maas <opensource@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-15 18:35:20 EDT --- (In reply to comment #28) > (I am kind of hovering on whether the build_doc and build_prof build switches > are overkill or not for general libs: sometimes they are useful - they do make > the spec file a little more complicated but make clear which parts are for docs > and profiling. The current templates I made have them though.) Imho the prof packages do not hurt, but in case the documentation is not big, there is no need to add it to a seperate doc subpackage. Nevertheless I would prefer to use %bcond_without or %bcond_with macros to make it possible to easily define whether or not to build the subpackages on the rpmbuild commandline. Here is a patch: http://till.fedorapeople.org/ghx-X11-buildcond.patch Btw. is there any need to require a certain version of ghc except for making sure that the pkg_libdir exists, i.e. would it be possible to just use a Requires: ghc, given that one can use some spec-fu to automatically build the pkg_libdir path and Requires from the ghc version that was used to build the rpm? Iirc it was only required in previous Fedora releases, to allow parallel installation of different ghc version, which is not supported anymore. -- 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