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: lat  (LDAP Administration Tool)


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177580





------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-06-17 11:13 EST -------
(In reply to comment #44)
> Not necessary (which should be evident from the fact that the package built
> successfully on the buildsystem). The dep chain is:
> 
> gtk-sharp2 -> gnome-panel -> gnome-menus -> redhat-menus -> desktop-file-utils

The wiki should be updated then, since this is clearly stated on the Package
Guidelines as a BR.
 
> > Also, your creatation of the directories for '%{_datadir}/gnome/help/' &
> > '%{_datadir}/omf/' is incorrect, and needs to be fixed.  You are taking
> > ownership of the directories.  Run 'rpm -qf /usr/share/mime' & 
> > rpm -qf /usr/share/omf' to verify this yourself.
> 
> This is deliberate.
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-review/2006-June/msg01049.html

I disagree with this suggestion.  This hasn't been common practice, and should
be forwarded to FESCO or whoever is in charge of the Packaging Guidelines (spot,
I believe) before implementing.
 
> > I've noticed that you seem to
> > have problems with directories ownership, and would suggest working with 
> > your
> > sponsor or a mentor to prevent this from happening on your future packages.
> 
> What other directory ownership problems have you noticed?
>

Monodoc, where your taking ownership of directories (/usr/lib/mono &
/usr/lib/mono/gac) which are owned by mono-core.

-- 
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