[Bug 669146] Review Request: gnumed-server - medical practice management - server

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat May 28 17:05:28 UTC 2011


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=669146

--- Comment #13 from Susmit <thinklinux.ssh at gmail.com> 2011-05-28 13:05:26 EDT ---

> 
> > 2. Not compressing man pages gives error.
> 
> It doesn't. rpmbuild does automagically gzip the man pages. I made this change
> to your spec:
> 
> #for man in `ls doc/*.*`; \
> #    do gzip $man; \
> #done
> #cp -p doc/*.8.gz %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man8
> #cp -p doc/*.1.gz %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1
> cp -p doc/*.8 %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man8
> cp -p doc/*.1 %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1
> 
> and built the resulting srpm in mock. 

Ok. I did not look at the cp. :)


> > 3. All other comments taken care of.
> 
> About the gpl patch. Is it really required? Just including a License as SOURCE1
> wouldn't suffice?

Yes, I guess.

> > 4. 
> > 
> > $rpmlint RPMS/noarch/gnumed-server-14.8-1.fc14.noarch.rpm gives 
> > gnumed-server.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
> I've asked the devel list on how one should be handling this. We'll probably
> have to patch it to the new address. 

No, we don't patch licences.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700095
I shall work with upstream to get it corrected. But this is not a blocker I
guess.

> Some tweaks are needed to the files section. There are unowned directories.
> This is what it should look like:

Done.

> The BuildRoot tag isn't required anymore. 

Done.

> Please comment on the patches in the spec. 
Done.

http://susmit.fedorapeople.org/packaging/gnumed-server/gnumed-server.spec
http://susmit.fedorapeople.org/packaging/gnumed-server/gnumed-server-14.8-1.fc14.src.rpm


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.



More information about the package-review mailing list