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: virt-manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199688 berrange@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From berrange@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-07-24 14:05 EST ------- The %extra_release stuff is not intended to be used for formal release builds. We have a automated builder system which builds snapshots of the app from source 24x7, which defines %extra_release based on a timestamp to distinguish snapshot RPM builds, from formal Fedora releases. I can take it out of the spec file if desired, or put a comment in as to its intended use. Do the automatic python requires pick up any versioning information? If not then I think it could be desirable to leave in the requires lines for python libvirt & dbus packages, so that if people try to deploy the RPM they don't do so against an older version of libvirt / dbus, which are known not to work. The pygtk, gconf & ctypes deps could easily come out though because I don't believe that's any critical versioning info that would be lost. I'll produce an updated spec file with fixes for the .pyo %ghost & full URL for %source, in the next few days. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review