Fedora Merge Review: bug-buddy
Initial Owner: firstname.lastname@example.org
it uses %makeinstall . I'm going to change it to use make install
there is some cruft:
perl -pi -e
that should just get pulled out.
I'm going to remove --vendor gnome from the desktop-file-install call. It
doesn't serve any useful purpose and is only there because historically it's
been a required command-line argument.
I've just removed that requirement upstream.
getting rid of --add-category X-Red-Hat-Extra . We don't use that anymore afaik.
* Source URL is canonical
* Upstream source tarball verified
* Group Tag is from the official list
* Buildroot has all required elements
* All paths begin with macros
* All directories are owned by this or other packages
* All necessary BuildRequires listed.
Need to Check:
* Ray, you might want to check w/ Rex Dieter about removing the vendor on the
desktop file. I believe the vendor needs to remain constant for the life of a
package due to menu-editing (which bases off of .desktop file/path names).
* * Duplicate BuildRequires: libbonobo-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), pango-devel
(by libgnomeui-devel), libgnomecanvas-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), gtk2-devel
(by libgnomeui-devel), gnome-vfs2-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), glib2-devel (by
libgnomeui-devel), libxml2-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), libgnome-devel (by
libgnomeui-devel), libglade2-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), libgnomeui-devel (by
I think it is not a good idea to remove BR for things that are explicitly
required by configure, just because they happen to also be dragged in by
So to be clear, the issue is that removing the vendor will change the filename
and the menu editor keys off the of the filename when making changes to the menu.
That seems a bit icky. It means we can never clean up the --vendor cruft, but
for now I'll just add --vendor back until we can figure out a better solution.
Brian, why is there a - in the fedora-review field ?
I don't see any blocking issue in your comment above.
(In reply to comment #8)
> Brian, why is there a - in the fedora-review field ?
> I don't see any blocking issue in your comment above.
Not really sure either. changing to +.
Ok, review done.