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=225797 --- Comment #13 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-19 17:01:14 EDT --- I can verify that this does indeed build fine with the first line changed to %define gimpdatadir %(%{_bindir}/gimptool --gimpdatadir || echo blah) Everything that follows assumes that a similar change has been made. However, I guess it's worth asking what that dependency does that the regular dependency on gimp doesn't do. We really try to avoid file dependencies out of a few specific directories because they require the users to download additional large hunks of metadata. Why is the release < 1? It doesn't seem to me that the 2.0.2 tarball upstream is any kind of prerelease. Unfortunately I can't find any statement of the license version in use. COPYING is simply v2 of the GPL, which has the usual language about being able to use any version if the program itself doesn't specify one. That would indicate that GPL+ is the appropriate license tag, but it would be a good idea to clarify with upstream because I don't think that's what they intend. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 31f9b40822646729be9ff50856e803a59290c119c600a8fdab4b669c4ccf2c1f gimp-data-extras-2.0.2.tar.bz2 X does not meet versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. ? license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. final provides and requires: gimp-data-extras = 2.0.2-0.1.fc11 = ? /usr/share/gimp/2.0 gimp * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files * acceptable content -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review