Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: zaptel-kmod

------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-06-08 23:18 EST -------
ok. I'd like to move this forward some... 

Using the spec/src.rpm from
(refered to from the asterisk review), and the "kernel module package" section 

Name/URL and License are all known from your spec, but the guidelines also ask: 

"A publishable explanation from the author(s) why the module is not merged with
the mainline kernel yet and when it's planed to get merged. You of course can
ask the author to explain it directly in the bug report."

Can you get that information from upstream? 

Also from that page: 
"All kernel module packages should use the template as a base. Reviewers of
kernel modules should diff the proposed kernel module packages against the
template. Only the names and the way the modules itself are build should differ.
There shouldn't be other differences without a good reason."

It's unclear what template should be diffed against there. kmodtool (the latest
version is used by this spec) and thus generates the spec additions exactly as
required. Is there a default template for the spec file to be used? If so 
I did diff against the thinkpad-kmod, but there is a good deal of whitespace and
other minor changes that make it difficult to see changes. 

(BTW, thinkpad-kmod has a typo in it's spec refering to lirc on line 8)

Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

Fedora-package-review mailing list

Reply via email to