Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-10 18:14 EST ------- Regardless wether it passes committee or not, there are multiple scenarios where there simply is not suitable source URL that can be put there. I have no problem putting the full source url for gnome packages in the spec files, since I do so many package updates from gnome ftp that I can type the full source url for a gnome tarball without looking. But what about packages which do not publish upstream releases in tarball form at all, or packages where the fedora source rpm is the preferred form of distribution because they are Red Hat inhouse projects ? -- 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
