Re: patches for configure.in and nautilus.spec{.in}

[Neil Weisenfeld <weisen+nautilus ai mit edu>]

On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 19:30, Chris Chabot wrote:
> Neil Weisenfeld wrote:
> 
> >I'm also an autotools newbie, so I'm not sure if I did this right, but
> >the problems seem straightforward.  
> >
> The good form is to mail the maintainers first and ask them how they 
> want to deal with it. Some will object to any changes to the spec files 
> / build system (libxml2/libxslt forinstance), while some would be happy 
> if you would commit straight to CVS.
> 

Ahh,sorry for the bad form.  Actually, on the desktop-devel list I was
told to contact the authors and offer to maintain the files for them,
but I was more interested, as a first iteration, in just contributing
patches :-).  I'll contact the authors directly.


> For a while it was an idea in the GPP (gnome packaging project) to 
> include directions in the HACKING file, but it seems that never 
> happened, so contacting the maintainers directly is the way to go for now.
> 
> The patches look good at-a-glance. Only thing is that u do not have to 
> define every require, libgnome will require gtk2, so why mention it 
> here? I'm also not sure if we still need the brb_compress @ the top of 
> the spec anymore.
> 

Cool.  I appreciate the feedback.  That stuff is not where I patched,
but if I patch again...


Regards,
Neil