[Bug 460260] Review Request: pangomm - C++ wrapper for pango
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Aug 27 14:48:42 UTC 2008
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=460260
--- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> 2008-08-27 10:48:41 EDT ---
Well,
(In reply to comment #2)
> - package owns all directories it creates
> doesn't own the following dirs that it creates:
> %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/pangomm-1.4
> %{_includedir}/pangomm-1.4
> %{_includedir}/pangomm-1.4/pangomm
- -devel subpackage actually owns these directories.
When written as
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
%files
%{_includedir}/pangomm-%{apiver}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This contains the directory %{_includedir}/pangomm-%{apiver} and all
directories/files/etc
under this directory.
Some notes:
- "BuildRequires: pango-devel" is listed twice.
- The %description of -devel subpackage is not right.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This package contains the static libraries and header files needed for
^^^^^^
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Would you consider to use
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
to keep timestamps on as many files as possible? This method usually works
for
recent autotool based Makefiles.
- Would you explain why you want to remove files under
%_libdir/pangomm-%apiver ?
- %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/ is already marked as docDirs (see Changelog in
"rpm" package:
from 2007-06-29)
--
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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list