[Bug 985] Review request: ProjectX-0.90.4.00-2

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=985 --- Comment #12 from Göran Uddeborg <goeran(a)uddeborg.se&gt; 2010-08-01 15:12:41 --- Well I did bump from -3 to -3.20091201cvs. That's later to rpm/yum. Maybe it would have been more obvious if I had bumped the "3" to "4" too, though. I'll do so in the future. Um, yes, that was sloppy. I don't have the -3 version around any more, but I've tried to retrofit now. I once was taught to do it, and have kept the habit. But I know it's debated, and I can switch to single-spacing if you prefer. I didn't put any since there isn't any upstream path to the tar archive. But I've added a comment on how the tar archive can be (re)made using a cvs and a tar command. It includes the exact path to the CVS pserver. Is this a good way to document where it comes from? So you like double spacing in SOME cases. :-) There wasn't double line spacing anywhere, so in that sense it was consistent. But I've added extra lines in some places. (I guess it could be debated what constitutes a "main section". If you think more or less is needed, let me know.) Hans? In comment 9 the only real rule was to be consistent, and your suggestion would be contrary to that. In the end, what is clear is of course a matter of taste. To me, unneeded braces clutters the spec and makes it LESS clear. If you really insist I could change it, but I WOULD like to keep it the way it is. Updated version available at ftp://ftp.uddeborg.se/pub/ProjectX/ProjectX.spec ftp://ftp.uddeborg.se/pub/ProjectX/ProjectX-0.90.4.00-4.20100801cvs.fc14.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.