Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203864 Summary: Review Request: tripwire - IDS Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact: [email protected] Spec URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/tripwire.spec SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/tripwire-2.4.0.1-1.fc6.2.src.rpm Description: tripwire has been orphaned for some time now, and neglected upstream for almost as long. I talked with Warren a while back about taking over and have finally decided to do so. However, upstream is still active on their forums and has been promising the next release since March. Nonetheless, I have contacted upstream in hopes of spurring some activity, and hopefully a new release that is gcc4-compatible out of the box, but no replies as of yet. This SRPM builds and runs on my FC5 i386 (has been running for the last 3 days without incident) as well as builds in mock FC6 i386, but I don't have access to x86_64 hardware to test builds. The spec file _does_ specify ExclusiveArch ix86, but that is leftover from 2.3.0 and some posts in the forums vaguely indicate that 2.4.0 builds and runs fine on 64bit hardware. I'd appreciate anybody willing to remove the ExclusiveArch and test building/executing on an x86_64 machine. It looks ugly while it's building, throws LOTS of warnings, 95% of which are complaining about non-virtual dtor's. I brought this up in my letter to upstream, but the binaries seem to run fine despite being narrowly compilable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- 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 [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
