Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613646 --- Comment #7 from Randall Berry <[email protected]> 2010-07-17 17:50:00 EDT --- Thanks Wolfy, Spec URL: http://dp67.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/SPECS/twlog.spec SRPM URL: http://dp67.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/SRPMS/twlog-2.7-1.fc13.src.rpm - New upstream release - Edit spec per review - Added desktop-file-install to verify .desktop file, not in review recommendations but I figured it couldn't hurt. rpmlint output: twlog.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary twlog 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. (In reply to comment #6) > Randall, is there any reason to not use the newer upstream version ( > http://wa0eir.home.mchsi.com/src/twlog-2.7.src.tar.gz ) ? Done: New upstream release posted after initial review was submitted. > I suggest to trim a bit the description. References to the changes over the > older version (such as " a new Matrix window ...", "A [...] was added...") > are, > in my opinion, completely irrelevant, just include a list of features. Done: Trimmed the description to basic details. > If you do not plan to build the package for older distros ( EPEL , F12) you > can > remove the BuildRoot tag and "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" invocations. I had planned to build for all currently supported Fedora releases. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
