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=484229 --- Comment #18 from leigh scott <[email protected]> 2009-02-08 08:14:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17) > Created an attachment (id=331236) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=331236) [details] > patch for spec file > > > I have read the packaging guidelines and found nothing that > > expressly prohibits this , so fixing this error isn't mandatory , > > is this correct ? > > No. For this review a fix will be mandatory. I'm going to test-build with > attached patch, as I believe it to be the correct way to package this app. > > The buildroot path being used in %build (instead of just %install) usually is > a > packaging mistake/pitfall. It has lead to trouble several times before. > > The guidelines aren't as complete as necessary to cover each and every > packaging detail. In corner-cases it may be "okay" to use the buildroot path > in > %build. But then you should have a much better rationale than a spec file > comment such as "needs the RPM_BUILD_ROOT in prefix to build". That's too > vague > and unconvincing. Thank you for the patch it works fine, I didn't know about the INSTALL_ROOT option. Here are the new SRPM & Spec file with your changes from you patch Spec URL: http://dnmouse.org/fedora/qbittorrent_review/review_changes/new_3/qbittorrent.spec SRPM URL: http://dnmouse.org/fedora/qbittorrent_review/review_changes/new_3/qbittorrent-1.3.1-6.fc10.src.rpm Thank you for your help. Leigh -- 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 [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
