[Bug 438105] Review Request: libconcord - Library to talk to Logitech® Harmony® universal remote controls

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Apr 22 17:41:59 UTC 2008


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: libconcord - Library to talk to Logitech® Harmony® universal remote controls


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438105





------- Additional Comments From silfreed at silfreed.net  2008-04-22 13:41 EST -------
(In reply to comment #16)
> 1) The .spec in the SRPM and the separate URL you posted don't quite match; 
only 1
> has a "BuildRequires: python". For completeness of review, these should 
match.

This must be rpmbuild stripping out the BR since this SRPM is the one from 
rpmbuild and not the re-packaged one from mock.  I guess I'll just remove it 
from the spec file as well.
 
> 2) You may as well use %{mainpkg} to replace both instances of "concordance" 
in the
> Source0 URL.

I like to keep the package name explicitly in the download URL.

> 3) In the %setup line, %name should be %{name}. At least for consistency, 
even if
> not functionality.

Thanks, fixed.

> 4) I believe the canonical hostname for SF downloads is 
downloads.sourceforge.net,
> not internap.dl.sourceforget.net (Source0 URL)

Thansk - I missed that when I moved from CVS back to the real source.  Fixed.

> 5) I don't think "%files ../xxx" is legal. Instead, I think you need to 
install
> those files in %install, then package them from the installation directory.
> 
> Take a look at fftw2 or cmigemo (I looked at devel branches) for other .spec
> files that work this way.

I think I'll tackle this a different way by removing the '%setup -n' stuff and 
cd to the proper directory for configuring and building.


-- 
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, or are watching someone who is.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list