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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

Reply via email to