Bug 130744

Summary: A few typos in the HelixPlayer spec
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Ling Li <redhat.bugzilla>
Component: HelixPlayerAssignee: Colin Walters <walters>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 3   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: 1.0.gold-4 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2004-09-14 19:59:37 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:

Description Ling Li 2004-08-24 06:39:06 UTC
Package: HelixPlayer-1.0.gold-2 from rawhide

Problems with the .spec files:

1. typos. e.g., %{_datadir}/%{_libdir}/helix/share/
2. Missing files. e.g., README is needed for user agreement.
3. Redudent patches. e.g.
HelixPlayer-1.0.beta20040615-cvs-no-update.patch is not required since
-k is used with the build system

Fix: See my spec file at
http://apt.ling.li/rpms/HelixPlayer/HelixPlayer.spec which contains
fixes for the above problems as well as some other hacks for Red Hat 9
and Fedore Core 1. Note that it builds 'release' binary packages
instead of 'debug' ones.

Packages for RH9 and FC1/2 can be obtained at
http://apt.ling.li/rpms/HelixPlayer, as a verification of the spec file.

Comment 1 Colin Walters 2004-09-14 19:59:37 UTC
1,2) Thanks for the fixes, I've merged them into the Fedora spec file.
3) I tried -k and it didn't work.


Comment 2 Ling Li 2004-10-04 22:24:32 UTC
Just wondering why "gold" appears in the version number. I think it is
unnecessary and makes things troublesome---for example, you have to
bump the epoch for 1.0.1. Why not remove it from the version and
mention "gold" somewhere, say, in Summary?

Comment 3 Colin Walters 2004-10-05 00:11:34 UTC
I was just trying to track upstream's versioning.  I'll remove it for
the next upstream version.