Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225854 --- Comment #4 from Roman Rakus <rra...@redhat.com> 2009-01-27 09:16:47 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=330088) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=330088) gperf specfile >Roman, thank you for taking action. I think, I've forgotten the suggestion >of preserving timestamps before and to avoid the usage of %makeinstall, thus >we recommend packagers to use instead: > > make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install INSTALL='install -p' > Ok. I changed it to make install. But why to use install -p? >Regarding the documentation I'm not really happy. We've currently much more >documentation rather rest of gperf inside of the package. > >We've multiple options: Creating -docs subpackage and moving everything out >there OR just kill the huge *.ps from %doc (*.ps vs. *.pdf seems to be a bit >redundant and *.pdf is usually better searchable) - last of it was accepted >and got told to be useful in Freenode #fedora-devel, #fedora-de by several >packagers. > >Choose what you like as packager and let me know. I can deal with both or >even a better option - afterwards we should be (hopefully) fine with review. I removed *.ps files. I am including specfile for review. Maybe there is something more and I'd like to prevent many useless builds. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedoraemail@example.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review