Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: ghc-gtk2hs


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189197





------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-04-30 09:55 EST -------
1. I modified the spec file so that I can find my way around more easily.
   You are free to use it.
2. I think the documentation package should install the documentation
   in gtk2hs-doc-%{version} or ghc-gtk2hs-doc-%{version}, since all
   directories in /usr/share/doc are versioned.
3. /usr/lib/ghc should be owned by the packages that install into it,
   otherwise it hangs around, if all packages have been removed.
4. Rather than remove the .o files in %preun, they should be %ghost'ed
5. The package.conf.old file should also be %ghost'ed by the
   ghc package otherwise, a complete uninstall leaves something
   hanging around.
6. The demos should also be packaged.
7. rpmlint complains about non-devel packages requiring devel packages.
   This should be ignored, otherwise we would have to append -devel
   to all packages.
8. rpmlint:
   "W: ghc642-glade summary-ended-with-dot Haskell binding of glade for gtk2hs."
   Remove the dot.
9. Currently, if someones builds a package requiring the gconf part
   of gtk2hs, he will need to require ghc642-gconf, even if he doesn't
   care about the exact version of ghc. Requiring ghc-gtk2hs does the
   right thing, but only for gtk, glib and cairo. Would
   "Provides: ghc-gconf" etc... work?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

Reply via email to