Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

--- Comment #4 from Roman Rakus <>  2009-01-27 09:16:47 EDT ---
Created an attachment (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 
>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:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Fedora-package-review mailing list

Reply via email to