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: scite - Scintilla based text editor


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193787





------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-06-02 22:10 EST -------
Hi Jason,

I've updated the spec file and SRPM:

Spec URL: http://calle255.org/scite/scite.spec
SRPM URL: http://calle255.org/scite/scite-1.69-2.src.rpm

(In reply to comment #2)
> The license seems to me to be equivalent to the MIT license
> (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php); that's what I'd use in
the License: field.

I've changed the license to MIT. Like you said both licenses are functionally
equivalent (it is also what Wikipedia says). Now rpmlint doesn't give any 
warnings.

> You don't seem to use %{optflags};
Fixed.

> 
> It seems that scintilla is built separately and then statically linked in.  Is
> it reasonable at all to build in a separate package and then dynamically link
it in?

It can surely be done, but it would require a lot of work and I don't think it's
worth it. Upstream isn't very interested on making scintilla a shared-library
and their recommendation has always been to static-link software using it.
Also, scite and scintilla are released together so I'm pretty sure using
different versions of scite/scintilla together will break things. The only
distro I know of that made scite/scintilla independent packages (making scite
dynamically linked) is PLD and it seems they are not doing it anymore.
Nevertheless, if you feel this is a major issue I'll try to fix it ;)

> Finally, I just wanted to make sure you understand that sponsorship is 
> generally
> granted only after you've demonstrated familiarity with the packaging
> guidelines; generally you do this by commenting on other packages up for 
> review.
>  I personally am reluctant to sponsor someone after looking at just a single
> submitted package. 

I see your point, but I'm very sorry to hear this. Though I haven't made any
comments on other RRs I've been following the discussions for a while
(fedora-extras-list included).

This isn't my first RPM but it's my first package for Extras so I'm doing my
best to get it right. If you think I'm not following any of the
PackagingGuidelines please let me know.

Jorge.

-- 
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