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=480056 --- Comment #1 from Denis Leroy <de...@poolshark.org> 2009-01-29 16:29:08 EDT --- Couple of things : - you should not put "%{version}" macro in the patch0 source filename, since this will force you to rename it everytime you update the package. Although not officially in the guidelines, most people hardcode the version that the patch was derived from, and keep that version in the filename until the patch no longer applies and has to be recreated... - why the pkgconfig patch ? I can see the development headers indeed only need libchamplain and gtk2 but this most likely will not stay true in the future. Seems a bit over the top... Otherwise this is very similar to the libchamplain review... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
