Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ibmasm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193059 konradr@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Group|fedora_contrib | ------- Additional Comments From konradr@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-05-26 10:11 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > Not a review, but a couple thoughts -- which I'll preface by saying I'd love to > see this one in extras <grin>: > > * As this isn't a kernel or a kernel module, a group of "Applications/System" is > probably more appropriate than "System Environment/Kernel" OK. Will change. > > * I'm pretty sure the license isn't GPL, as, e.g., ibmasm/src/rsa.h states: > "This software may be used and distributed according to the terms of the Lesser > GNU Public License, incorporated herein by reference". Uhuh. Let me speak with the author to get clarificaton on this. > > * A full upstream source URL is required, such that the code tarball can be > fetched independently. Working on having it in sourceforge > > * With respect to "ExclusiveArch: i386", why exclude x86_64? Is this documented > somewhere? No/Yes. The ibmasm module is only enabled for i386. The RSA(1) adapter was never shipped in machines that support 64-bit mode, so no need for 64-bit package. > > --- > > On a different level, why not make this a public bug? Hmm. Good thought - seems that by mistake I had it set to Fedora contributors only. -- 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 Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review