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=784950 --- Comment #17 from Rex Dieter <[email protected]> 2012-02-09 09:00:21 EST --- re: comment #14 I've seen spectool -g fail before, but that's largely exposing bugs in the tool(s) it uses to download. Put the URL into a browser, and it works. Personally, I'd much prefer pointing our package URLs at upstreams preferred download methods (which employ mirrors) than rely on a single (and often slower) upstream server. Now, as to the contentions as to the thoroughness of the review here. Yes, it was probably a bit too brief. Let me suggest that instead of pointing out where the review is lacking (and being negative), focus on how to make *this* review better. For example, if you see something in the proposed package that's missing or needs improvement, please do mention that. I'd argue any comment here that doesn't directly pertain to improving the quality of the package under review here, is in the least a bit off-topic, and at most, wasted and misdirected energy. -- 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
