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=661615 --- Comment #5 from Adam Williamson <[email protected]> 2011-01-23 16:58:26 EST --- updated: Spec URL: http://www.happyassassin.net/extras/bamf.spec SRPM URL: http://www.happyassassin.net/extras/bamf-0.2.74-1.aw_fc15.src.rpm fixed the license (I think, it's a complex situation; I've reported it to upstream, I think the GPL headers are simply errors). Fixed the build problem by disabling the warning that causes the trouble. Adjusted the file lists (installation of vala and gir stuff was disabled in 0.2.72 for some reason). I haven't added any dependency on the 'base' package. Reasoning is that it's really a lib package, it only contains a library, and we should rely on auto-depends for libraries; I think it would actually violate another guideline to add an explicit dependency on it. It's actually correct to go with the soname requires even if it means you don't need the exact same version of the package, I think. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
