https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247585
--- Comment #3 from Frank Dedden <[email protected]> --- The review is based on the review-template provided by the poster. This is my first package review. I marked some points with ? as I am unsure what to do with them: - unversioned .so files: how to verify that they are not in the ld path. The path of the system that is used to build the package? - Should the reviewer build the package as well? Isn't that already done on Koji? - How to check for preservation of timestamps? And why would they differ? As noted under 'issues', there are currently a few shortcomings. I am not sure if this is necessarily a problem for a release, as they seem like rather minor things. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247585 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202247585%23c3 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
