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: sos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193712 ------- Additional Comments From jwb@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-07-10 11:34 EST ------- On behalf of Steve C: I've just rolled new packages with corrections that Steve made in the source; the only thing I can see from the above list is that the .pyo files are still packaged. I didn't ghost these out for two reasons: 1) I can't find the guideline in the FE packaging requirements that says these should be ghosted, and 2) the main python package in FC doesn't ghost out .pyo files, so it seems more consistent to go ahead and package the .pyo's. New packages located at: SPEC: http://www.berningeronline.net/sos.spec SRPM: http://www.berningeronline.net/sos-0.1-6.src.rpm I'm providing these packages to try and speed the review along since Steve has been swamped with moving to a new house and there are lots of people inside RH who'd like to see this accepted. Steve will remain the main contact for this package. -- 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