[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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=428567 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|479527 | -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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=428567 --- Comment #76 from Lubomir Rintel 2009-06-07 05:09:08 EDT --- (In reply to comment #75) > Lubomir etc, could you please review this alternate patch: > > http://patches.synfig.org/r/25/diff/#index_header Seems very well. Thanks! -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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=428567 --- Comment #75 from Paul Wise 2009-05-10 22:23:23 EDT --- Lubomir etc, could you please review this alternate patch: http://patches.synfig.org/r/25/diff/#index_header Please note that some of the Fedora changes are already committed in SVN and some related changes are also in SVN. The patch does the following: Generate etl_profile.h in a less hacky way. Move the tests needed for generating etl_profile.h into configure.ac. Use less generic defines in the etl_profile.h header Prefix private defines with a double underscore. Move the etl_profile.h header to an arch-specific dir to prepare for multi-arch. -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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=428567 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NOTABUG |NEXTRELEASE -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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=428567 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Comment #74 from Lubomir Rintel 2009-03-01 07:32:17 EDT --- Imported and built. Thanks for good review and CVS. -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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=428567 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #73 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-02-26 19:26:41 EDT --- cvs done. -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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=428567 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #72 from Lubomir Rintel 2009-02-26 12:35:19 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: ETL Short Description: Extended Template Library Owners: lkundrak (anyone who wants to comaintiain this, feel free to opt in) Branches: EL-5 F-10 -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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=428567 --- Comment #71 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) 2009-02-23 14:56:36 EDT --- any news ? -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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=428567 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #70 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) 2009-02-05 13:08:27 EDT --- package ETL is APPROVED -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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=428567 --- Comment #69 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) 2009-02-03 16:27:38 EDT --- (In reply to comment #68) > (In reply to comment #66) > likely anyways), the be renamed and a header that would include one depending > on __WORD_SIZE will be in their original place. This is a common practice. It would be an accurate solution, indeed. > When someone says "devel package", what comes to my mind is "useful for > development" Actually the package name is already ETL which only produce an ETL-devel. So I think we are good. I'm looking synfig/synfig studio to have usability tests of the ETL package... -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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=428567
--- Comment #68 from Lubomir Rintel 2009-02-03 14:56:02 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #66)
> Look at
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428567#c17
> The current package miss the etl_profile.h move into %{_libdir}/ETL and the
> related adds in ETL.pc (Cflags: -I${includedir} -I${libdir}/ETL)
> If ever the current ETL_HAS_ are the same with both arches on multilibs
> system,
> I would still prefer this solution since it will still be valid if others
> ETL_HAVE need to be introduced later.
etl_profile.h can not be moved there, apart from it not being a good idea, FHS
forbids that. In case the include files become arch-dependent (which is not
likely anyways), the be renamed and a header that would include one depending
on __WORD_SIZE will be in their original place. This is a common practice.
> About the package name. One could say this is not a -devel but a -headers
> subpackage only, since it doesn't contain the symlink to a shared object.
> But -devel and -headers only exist when there is a "main" package also.
> (kernel-headers and kernel-devel exist because they are for a different usage
> than the kernel package itself.)
> Since there is no such "main" package, I think the current package is the
> main.
>
> In other words:
> From one side, I don't see anything to override the Fedora guideline which
> tell
> to use the upstream source archive name as the "source" package name.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#General_Naming
> See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428567#c31
>
> On the other side, it remains possible for the ETL source package to only
> build
> an ETL-devel or ETL-headers package. (or to have only the
> ETL-%{version}-%{release}.src.rpm just build a plain
> ETL-%{version}-%{release}.%{_target_cpu}.rpm)
>
> (either using ETL-devel or ETL, the pkgconfig(ETL) provides will be properly
> extracted).
When someone says "devel package", what comes to my mind is "useful for
development", not "having a symlink to shared object" and I'd like to leave it
that way. I think you see that this might be a matter of personal taste and
doesn't violate guidelines, so I'm not going to change it unless there's a
really serious objection.
--
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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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=428567 --- Comment #67 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) 2009-02-03 10:43:52 EDT --- any question / tought ? -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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=428567
--- Comment #66 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) 2009-01-20
06:23:51 EDT ---
Look at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428567#c17
The current package miss the etl_profile.h move into %{_libdir}/ETL and the
related adds in ETL.pc (Cflags: -I${includedir} -I${libdir}/ETL)
If ever the current ETL_HAS_ are the same with both arches on multilibs system,
I would still prefer this solution since it will still be valid if others
ETL_HAVE need to be introduced later.
About the package name. One could say this is not a -devel but a -headers
subpackage only, since it doesn't contain the symlink to a shared object.
But -devel and -headers only exist when there is a "main" package also.
(kernel-headers and kernel-devel exist because they are for a different usage
than the kernel package itself.)
Since there is no such "main" package, I think the current package is the main.
In other words:
>From one side, I don't see anything to override the Fedora guideline which tell
to use the upstream source archive name as the "source" package name.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#General_Naming
See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428567#c31
On the other side, it remains possible for the ETL source package to only build
an ETL-devel or ETL-headers package. (or to have only the
ETL-%{version}-%{release}.src.rpm just build a plain
ETL-%{version}-%{release}.%{_target_cpu}.rpm)
(either using ETL-devel or ETL, the pkgconfig(ETL) provides will be properly
extracted).
--
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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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=428567 --- Comment #65 from Lubomir Rintel 2009-01-13 14:31:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #64) > ETL is an header-only package, why split in ETL and ETL-devel? I've been told > that you can proceed either way but I think that having only ETL is better. I don't split the package. The only binary (well, non-src) package that gets built from this package is ETL-devel, there's no main package, since because there's no %files section other than one for -devel subpackage. Package guidelines suggest that packages with content like this should be in -devel subpackage. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Devel_Packages It could be argued that this package is exceptional, since it is only useful for development, but I find it much more consistent to call it -devel. It is only useful for development, not run-time and the -devel name makes is easily distinguishable as such not only to the user, but also to the tools (such as rpmdev-rmdevelrpms). This is also more future-proof (for the unlikely cause it gains some library code). It might be a good idea to provide ETL now though. > By the way: are you a sponsored packager (I couldn't find you in the packager > group). If not, you'll have to wait a sponsor to step in and review the > package. Yup, I am sponsored. I believe you can view my groups there, and packager is among those: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/user/view/lkundrak -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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=428567 --- Comment #64 from Lorenzo Villani 2009-01-13 10:27:13 EDT --- ETL is an header-only package, why split in ETL and ETL-devel? I've been told that you can proceed either way but I think that having only ETL is better. By the way: are you a sponsored packager (I couldn't find you in the packager group). If not, you'll have to wait a sponsor to step in and review the package. -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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=428567 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||479527 -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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=428567 --- Comment #63 from Lubomir Rintel 2009-01-10 12:26:42 EDT --- Sorry; I forgot to reset the revision, here are new packages: SRPMS: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/ETL-0.04.12-1.el5.src.rpm SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/ETL.spec -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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=428567 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lkund...@v3.sk --- Comment #62 from Lubomir Rintel 2009-01-10 12:24:39 EDT --- New upstream release (stepping in since the original submitter seems unresponsive): SRPMS: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/ETL-0.04.12-4.el5.src.rpm SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/ETL.spec * HAVE_* macros have been renamed to avoid clash with autoconf. "config.h-like" file etl_profile.h was not removed, since upstream does not do that, and I tend to think that it's the good way to go. See -- this would add a requirement for programs that use this to define ~10 macros prior to include the header, which can be non-trivial and ugly for programs that don't rely on autoconf && friends. And in case a new one gets added it could unnecessarily break compatibility, possibly resulting into builds with feature set smaller than intended. I don't think doing that with this added maintenance cost is a good idea. There is a prior art as well -- many packages hardcode feature set at build time. Rpmlint is silent, this builds in f11 mock and synfig with synfig studio build cleanly against this as well. -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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=428567 --- Comment #61 from Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-23 01:20:21 EDT --- New version released, please update. If there are any patches you need, please send them our way. -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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=428567 Lorenzo Villani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #60 from Lorenzo Villani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-25 10:58:27 EDT --- Any progress with this package? I can take it, if necessary. -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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: ETL - Extended Template Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428567 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-02 21:59 EST --- Nicholas, you might want to check bug 429809. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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: ETL - Extended Template Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428567 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-02 20:18 EST --- Again, ping ? don't forget to ask if you get lost with what to do... -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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: ETL - Extended Template Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428567 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-12 20:37 EST --- ping ? -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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: ETL - Extended Template Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428567 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-14 20:26 EST --- Yeah I have been busy with $RL work so I'll start on it tonight hopefully. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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: ETL - Extended Template Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428567 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-14 07:49 EST --- @Marc Did you understood what you need to do ? upstream agreed to add the patch but i have no time for providing it. Would be better if you can work on it as you want to be the maintainer of this package. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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: ETL - Extended Template Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428567 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-06 10:07 EST --- (In reply to comment #53) > > IMNSHO, this package is of a too poor quality to let in into Fedora. > Do you see other problem than the etl_profile.h to say it's poor ? This bug alone a BLOCKER and a MUSTFIX. The problem behind this and the fact nobody has been able to come up with a quick-fix are caused by this package suffering from fundamental design flaws. > > In particular, none of its silly HAVE_ define issues have been fixed. > Well as ETL and synfig build fine i would only see this a an improvement. The point is: You are trying to ship ETL as standalone devel-package. The HAVE_ defines disqualifies it from such usages. > Many packages still use a config.h like package (for example mozilla-config.h > from mozilla/firefox/xulrunner). I haven't checked this particular case, but it's likely the a similar mis-design. There have been several of similar cases around, with some of them having been ironed out over time, and some of them not having been fixed. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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: ETL - Extended Template Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428567 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-06 06:05 EST --- > IMNSHO, this package is of a too poor quality to let in into Fedora. Do you see other problem than the etl_profile.h to say it's poor ? > In particular, none of its silly HAVE_ define issues have been fixed. > Well as ETL and synfig build fine i would only see this a an improvement. Many packages still use a config.h like package (for example mozilla-config.h from mozilla/firefox/xulrunner). But as you disagree I won't object. NEED_WORK: remove all config.h like files from the package. Thoses need to be checked by the dependant application at configure time. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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: ETL - Extended Template Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428567 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-06 01:43 EST --- (In reply to comment #51) > This package (ETL) is approved by me Urgh, why did you do this? IMNSHO, this package is of a too poor quality to let in into Fedora. In particular, none of its silly HAVE_ define issues have been fixed. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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: ETL - Extended Template Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428567 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-05 19:36 EST --- Ok - Why do you have no space between this: Requires: pkgconfig %description That's important to have a spec file readable, as everyone can take a look on it and watch commit logs. (same for one line BuildRequires). Anyway... This package (ETL) is approved by me -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 428567] Review Request: ETL - Extended Template Library
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: ETL - Extended Template Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428567 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: ETL-devel - |Review Request: ETL - |Extended Template Library |Extended Template Library -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
