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: qjackctl - Qt based JACK control application


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191239





------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-05-12 13:46 EST -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > It's personal preference. I personally consider this change to be a 
> > regression
> > since "%__rm" expends to a fully-qualified pathname, unlike plain "rm". 
> 
> What about %{__make}?  I've been asked to change that to "make" in some 
> reviews.

My personal preference is to use the macros where they are available, and
fully-qualified pathnames otherwise, for all commands used in the build process.

> Fernando - I think people also like to see:
> Source0: http://dl.sourceforge.net/qjackctl/qjackctl-0.2.20.tar.gz
> instead of 
> Source0: http://dl.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
> since it is directly wget'able, although I don't know if it's 
> official policy or not.

My preference is:
Source0: http://dl.sf.net/qjackctl/qjackctl-%{version}.tar.gz

Reasons:
* dl.sf.net is a shorter URL :-)
* using the package name explicitly rather than just %{name} is a little more
readable, and the package name is hardly likely to change very often
* the version number is likely to change, so using the %{version} macro helps
maintainability of the package
* whilst the use of the %{version} macro prevents wget from working directly,
you can use spectool from the fedora-rpmdevtools package to retrieve the source
for you - it will automatically expand the macro




-- 
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