Bug 1046688
Summary: | Review Request: netsurf-buildsystem - makefiles shared by NetSurf projects | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | David Tardon <dtardon> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Christopher Meng <i> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | dtardon, i, package-review |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | i:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | netsurf-buildsystem-1.1-2.fc20 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2014-01-02 13:09:00 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 1046690, 1046691, 1046692, 1046693 |
Description
David Tardon
2013-12-26 15:19:07 UTC
Only 2 small issues: 1. %build You should add a note there for the sake of tell others that nothing need to be built. 2. %install make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} PREFIX=/usr You should use %{_prefix} instead of simple straightforward "/usr" -------------------------- PACKAGE APPROVED. (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1) > Only 2 small issues: > > 1. %build > You should add a note there for the sake of tell others that nothing need to > be built. Does an empty %build section not indicate that quite well already? :-) > > 2. %install > make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} PREFIX=/usr > > You should use %{_prefix} instead of simple straightforward "/usr" I know... I forgot to change it in this one. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: netsurf-buildsystem Short Description: Makefiles shared by NetSurf projects Owners: dtardon caolanm Branches: InitialCC: Well, you'd better do that, not you MUST do that. I can't force anyone to do what he or she is reluctant to do, albeit harmless. Once I see this package in rawhide repo, I will complete other package reviews. Git done (by process-git-requests). David, will netsurf* be available for f20? (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #6) > David, will netsurf* be available for f20? I do not plan to make any of the packages available for F-20. Note that I am not packaging the whole NetSurf stack--which is 15 libraries and the browser itself--but just libcss and libhubbub + their deps. I started to use them in libe-book recently, when I decided (or rather, was convinced) to add HTML support. But no new release of libe-book will get into F-20 (for a very good reason, but one that has nothing to do with libcss / libhubbub), so I just do not need them there :-) (In reply to David Tardon from comment #7) > (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #6) > > David, will netsurf* be available for f20? > > I do not plan to make any of the packages available for F-20. Note that I am > not packaging the whole NetSurf stack--which is 15 libraries and the browser > itself--but just libcss and libhubbub + their deps. I started to use them in > libe-book recently, when I decided (or rather, was convinced) to add HTML > support. But no new release of libe-book will get into F-20 (for a very good > reason, but one that has nothing to do with libcss / libhubbub), so I just > do not need them there :-) Ok. I thought that you might packaging netsurf browser which was used by me 1 year ago. ;) Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: netsurf-buildsystem New Branches: f20 Owners: dtardon caolanm cicku Git done (by process-git-requests). netsurf-buildsystem-1.1-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/netsurf-buildsystem-1.1-2.fc20 netsurf-buildsystem-1.1-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. |