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=732218
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Spura <tomspur(a)fedoraproject.org> 2011-09-23 14:56:48 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #2)
Thanks for the review!
1. Yes, of course, I will change the specification file name to travelccm.spec.
As a matter of fact, locally, to test the build of the package, I usually do a
symbolic link on the latest version of the specification file (e.g.,
travelccm.spec -> travelccm.spec-0.5.0-1.spec). That avoids confusion around
the version of the specification file.
Yes, it will only always cause a rpmlint warning, when you link to the
versioned spec. Maybe rsyncing with "-L" would help here.
3. For the doc sub-package, I guess that you meant:
%if ! (0%{?rhel} < 6)
BuildArch: noarch
%endif
It makes sense to me, and I will alter the specification file.
Yes, of course :(
4. About the LGPLv2+ headers, you mean that I should add them into the source
code?
Hmm, I ought to remember, that's a SHOULD to ask upstream for doing so, e.g.:
http://ball-trac.bioinf.uni-sb.de/ticket/220
--
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.