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: gtkglextmm


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191594





------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-05-14 14:43 EST -------
Alright, I reuploaded a new version of the spec.

> * The spec "BuildRequires: gtkext >= 1.2.0".
> AFAICT, 1.0.0 should be sufficient. At least, I am not aware about any API
> changes between GtkGlExt-1.0.0 and 1.2.0 making this requirement necessary.

> A fact confirming this, is gtkglextmm's configure script to only check for
> gtkglext >= 1.0.0.

Yup, you're right. As both of these packages have been released almost together,
I thought that it was necessary ;)

> * The spec explicitly 
> Requires: gtkglext
> Requires: gtkmm24

> This shouldn't be necessary.

Ok, I removed them. But for my personal education, could you explain me why ? It
is the first rpm spec I write, I only have a previous experience with gentoo
ebuilds ... Is it because rpm added automatically a dependency on the
*librairies* in the gtkglext package by checking undefined symbols ?

> * Please explain /usr/lib/gtkglextmm-1.2/proc/m4/*
> I don't know what these files are (Look like some m4 macros to help converting
> some types), how they are supposed to be used and why they need to be shipped.

> AFAIS, they don't they seem to be used by anything in gtkglextmm.

Well, I use this library as an app developper, and I don't need these files
either. However, directly from the README file in the source package in 
tools/m4 :

"This directory contains additional type conversions for gtkglextmm.
The convert.m4 file overrides the file of the same name in gtkmm.

Like the gtkmm m4 conversion files, these files are also installed, for use by
other libraries."

So I guess some people have a use for it ...

-- 
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