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=492087 Lubomir Rintel <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Lubomir Rintel <[email protected]> 2009-04-09 01:57:08 EDT --- The package is beautiful, nothing to complain for, so I'll made up :) None of this are blockers, of course. 1.) How about removing the first line from description and replacing the summary with it? An one-line paragraph lines don't look well in descriptions and such short and concise sentence seems to be a good replacement for the long summary line. 2.) Lack of empty line between %prep and %build seems like a sin against the style. 3.) Though technically this does not require pidgin, it is of not much use without it. How about adding pidgin to requires? 4.) I believe that the patch is unneeded, you can accomplish the very same effect by passing LIB_INSTALL_DIR= parameter to make - Spec file is clean, legible and written using valid American English - Source tarball matches upstream - Rpmlint is happy - Compiler flags used properly - License is correct, license file included - No -devel subpackage, no libraries installed - Provides are sane - Requires are sane - Filelist is ok APPROVED -- 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
