Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gnu-smalltalk - GNU Smalltalk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174377 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-28 02:30 EST ------- I can reply as far as the upstream package is concerned... > * %install section > - Fix broken Shebangs > (Please see "timestamp" section below for this). Should not be necessary anymore. > - *.st files > Well, actually I first saw this utility so I don't quite know > how to use this package, however, are these *.st really required > for 'minimal' use of smalltalk? Or are these somewhat 'add-on' > files for smalltalk? (The judgment as of what is 'minimal' use > is up to you.) They are needed to load the optional packages (e.g. sockets, GUI bindings, ...). > - /usr/share/gnu-smalltalk/unsupported/binary.c > rpmlint complains about this file as 'devel-file-in-non-devel-package'. > Would you explain why this file should be in main package? I'm going to remove this from the upstream package too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
