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=480887





--- Comment #9 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fed...@gmail.com>  2009-02-08 
14:37:36 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Ah, after reading http://musicxml.org/xml.html and
> also this:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=357461
> and also your explanation:
> 
> - This MusicXML document format license is free, GPL imcompatible
> - However it seems that kguitar behaves just an interpreter or
>   editor for MusicXML document format license files.
> 
> So there should no license issue for this package. Then:
> 

Ok, so should I keep that MusicXML document license file in the %doc, or
doesn't it matter?

> * _texmf macro
>   - Isn't the following enough?
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> %{!?_texmf: %define _texmf %(kpsewhich -expand-var '$TEXMFMAIN')}
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> 

I forgot to fix this. There's already an RPM macro %{_texmf_main} provided by
texlive-texmf package. I made the SPEC file to use that macro instead.


> ! Versioning
>   - For svn based tarball, I prefer to include revision number
>     rather than the date I pulled the source because revision
>     number specifies the source used precisely, however
>     this is left to your choice.
> 

I agree. Changed.


>   - By the way, would you tell me if this is after or before
>     0.5.1 formal release?
> 

This SVN snapshot includes some fixes that came *after* the 0.5.1 formal
release.

> * TeX dependency
>   - I think 30 Mbyte extra dependency is enough large.
>     Also I think that requiring another font for this package
>     should not be mandatory.
>     TeX related dependency should be split out.
>     I would choose "kguitar-tex" for TeX related subpackage.
> 

I split the TeX bits into a subpackage.

> * Timestamps
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> touch -r %{name}/x-%{name}.desktop tmpfile
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>   - Is it really needed here to keep timestamps on this file?
>     You "actually" modified this desktop file here.
> 

I was not thinking. Removed the timestamp conservation.

> ? Desktop file location
>   - Is it needed that the desktop file is installed under
>     %_datadir/applications/kde, not under %_datadir/applications?
>     Such desktop files cannot be seem from GNOME, however
>     it seems that this application can be used also on GNOME.
> 

I didn't know that the application won't be visible from gnome. I changed it to
use %_datadir/applications.

> * _docdir
>   - Files/directories under %_docdir are automatically marked
>     as %doc

Removed the unnecessary %doc.

Update:
Spec URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/kguitar.spec
SRPM URL:
http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/kguitar-0.5.1-3.926svn.fc10.src.rpm

Changelog: 0.5.1-3.926svn
- Change the EVR scheme (use svn revision instead of date in R)
- Use RPM's _texmf_main macro instead of redefining it
- Place the TeX bit into a -tex subpackage
- Specfile cleanup

-- 
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

Reply via email to