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=512217 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Underwood <[email protected]> 2009-07-17 12:51:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > Also, please try to use %{name} rather than "geany-plugins" in the file > > list. > > Why? The guidelines only demand that macro usage is consistent. This means not > to mix e. g. %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. The rest is up to the > maintainer. Because at present there is an *inconsistent* mixture of %{name} and "geany-plugins" used in the specfile. Consistency is the key here, I agree. > Last but not least I suggest to split this package into different > subpackages. Yes - Dominic and I discussed this. The present barrier to doing that is that the po files are not split up for each plugin. Once that's resolved it would be possible to split them up. I think Dominic has a scheme to do that from the unified po files, but I'll let him respond on that :). -- 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
