Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: libpfm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226037 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[EMAIL PROTECTED] ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-11-14 17:32 EST ------- Is the static lib needed? libpfm.so should be in -devel. %{_prefix} should be used instead of PREFIX The rpm dependency generator doesn't generate rightly the dependencies certainly because the library file isn't executable. Then the %attr can be dropped. The timestamps should be kept. Using %{PACKAGE_VERSION} is very strange in %files. The buildroot is not the preferred one. %doc for mandir is not needed. Are the following really needed: ExclusiveOS: linux AutoReqProv: no License is not right. I don't think that libpfm-3.2-rpm_opt.patch is the right way to do. I think that something like make CFLAGS="%{optflags}" is simpler and less intrusive. I suggest changing %defattr(-,root,root) to %defattr(-,root,root,-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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
