[Bug 178900] Review Request: monodoc

2008-07-07 Thread bugzilla
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: monodoc


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=178900


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Severity|normal  |medium
   Priority|normal  |medium
Product|Fedora Extras   |Fedora
Version|devel   |rawhide




-- 
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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 178900] Review Request: monodoc

2006-06-02 Thread bugzilla
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: monodoc


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178900





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-06-02 05:36 EST ---
(In reply to comment #26)
 If you've go a 86_64 system, run rpm --eval '%{_exec_prefix}'

And try the same for %{_lib} and %{_libdir}, which I would expect to be /lib64
and /usr/lib64 respectively. Isn't %{_exec_prefix} = /usr on all current arches?


-- 
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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 178900] Review Request: monodoc

2006-06-02 Thread bugzilla
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: monodoc


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178900





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-06-02 09:43 EST ---
 rpm --eval '%{_exec_prefix}' --eval '%{_lib}' --eval '%{_libdir}'
/usr
lib64
/usr/lib64

 uname -a
Linux compute19.math.uh.edu 2.6.16-1.2122_FC5 #1 SMP Sun May 21 15:01:10 EDT
2006 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux


-- 
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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 178900] Review Request: monodoc

2006-06-02 Thread bugzilla
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: monodoc


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178900





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-06-02 09:58 EST ---
Geez, I wonder what crack I was smokin' yesterday.

-- 
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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 178900] Review Request: monodoc

2006-06-01 Thread bugzilla
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: monodoc


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178900





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-06-01 04:57 EST ---
SRPM Name or Url: 
http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/monodoc-1.1.13-9.src.rpm
Spec Name or Url: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/monodoc.spec

Changes

Fixed the /usr/bin problem (#18)
Disabled debug package (#18}

-- 
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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 178900] Review Request: monodoc

2006-06-01 Thread bugzilla
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: monodoc


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178900





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-06-01 18:23 EST ---
Thanks - if it's good to go, I'll commit it tonight

-- 
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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 178900] Review Request: monodoc

2006-06-01 Thread bugzilla
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: monodoc


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178900





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-06-01 19:46 EST ---
For some reason, if I define _libdir to be /usr/lib, things go wrong for 64 bit
architecture whereas with this macro, things work correctly. It could just be my
buildsystems.

-- 
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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 178900] Review Request: monodoc

2006-06-01 Thread bugzilla
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: monodoc


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178900





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-06-01 19:56 EST ---
Well, using %{_exec_prefix}/lib is no different than using %{_libdir}.  Refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/RPMMacros

-- 
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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 178900] Review Request: monodoc

2006-06-01 Thread bugzilla
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: monodoc


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178900





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-06-01 20:10 EST ---
Unless I'm mistaken, %{_libdir} is whatever lib the architecture specifies
(/usr/lib64 or /usr/lib). However %{_exec_prefix}/lib will always go to /usr/lib
without exception

I'll check the URL anyway. As the +1 Accept had been given, I've committed and
built the package, but until this is resolved, I'll leave the bug open.

-- 
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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 178900] Review Request: monodoc

2006-05-31 Thread bugzilla
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: monodoc


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178900





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-05-31 18:14 EST ---
Spec Name or Url: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/monodoc.spec

Changes

1.1.13-8

Removed postun
Fixed the devel package bit
Added %description devel to the spec file

-- 
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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 178900] Review Request: monodoc

2006-05-31 Thread bugzilla
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: monodoc


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178900





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-05-31 19:41 EST ---
NEEDS WORK.

1. Somewhere between monodoc-1.1.13-4.src.rpm  monodoc-1.1.13-8.src.rpm, in the
%files sections you changed '%{_bindir}/*' to '%{_bindir}/'.  This will give you
the following error when running rpmlint:
  E: monodoc standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/bin

Which is a big no-no.

2. The debuginfo package is empty.  You need to define '%define debug_package
%{nil}' in the spec to disable it.

-- 
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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 178900] Review Request: monodoc

2006-05-15 Thread bugzilla
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: monodoc


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178900





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-05-15 16:31 EST ---
New specfile uploaded. I've not uploaded the .src.rpm yet as my connection is
playing up from here.

Fixed the points you've made.

Spec Name or Url: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/monodoc.spec

-- 
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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review


[Bug 178900] Review Request: monodoc

2006-05-14 Thread bugzilla
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: monodoc


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178900





--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-05-14 08:49 EST ---
Spec Name or Url: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/monodoc.spec
SRPM Name or Url: 
http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/monodoc-1.1.13-6.src.rpm

Fixes as suggested

-- 
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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review