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=736861
--- Comment #2 from Mads Kiilerich <mads(a)kiilerich.com> 2011-09-10 05:14:29 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Thanks for the quick response.
Please inform upstream on the wrong address.
https://www.logilab.org/ticket/75295
Use the name macro in Source0 and the files section.
I don't fully agree with that. I used explicit "hgview" where it didn't
refer
to the package name or upstream tar name. I don't think this increased use of
%{name} increases the readability or flexibility of the spec. But ok ...
BuildRequires and Requires are separated by spaces, not commas. Even
better:
Put each on a separate line.
Yes, that is another way of doing it, but I don't see any
requirement/preference for that in the Packaging Guidelines.
FWIW
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package and
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/R...
describe it as a comma-separated list.
It would be great of the guidelines could help making it more consistent.
Drop the version constraint for PyQt4. All possible build targets
have a
version new enough.
Ok.
The version restriction for Mercurial should probably go to
the BRs as well, so the package won't build.
This build time dependency is bogus and isn't really used, so I assume it would
work with all future versions of Mercurial.
https://www.logilab.org/ticket/75296
Spec URL:
http://kiilerix.fedorapeople.org/hgview.spec
SRPM URL:
http://kiilerix.fedorapeople.org/hgview-1.3.0-2.fc15.src.rpm
--
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.