[Bug 564425] Review Request: sugar-tamtam - A suite of four music and sound related activities

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=564425

--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Dziallas <sebastian at when.com> 2010-02-27 17:07:17 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)

I uploaded a new version.

Spec URL: http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/sugar-tamtam.spec
SRPM URL:
http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/sugar-tamtam-0-0.2.20100201git.fc12.src.rpm

> Issues:
> - The sugar-tamtam package should be called sugar-tamtam-common because it is
> not a standalone package. The srpm and spec will still be called sugar-tamtam.

I moved the common files into a common package. Rpmlint complains now about the
main package containing no binary, though.

> - Due to python3 the python guidelines have changed recently. Please update the
> macro definitions acording to
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#Macros
> 
> - You can drop python_sitelib because it is not needed here.

Both done!

> - make is not verbose so compiler flags cannot be verified.

I added the V=1 parameter, so that should be good, too.

> - add -p to preserve timestamps when using cp -r 

Done.

> - the command to install the package should be
> %{__python} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> instead of
> python ./setup.py install --prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_prefix}

We discussed this on IRC; setup.py seems to have issues with the other
invocation.

> - Typos: organise -> organize, synthesiser -> synthesizer

Fixed these and a few other typos.

> - backup-file-in-package: Are these files needed?    

I don't think so and have removed them.

-- 
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.