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=225660 --- Comment #4 from manuel wolfshant <wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-23 12:22:30 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) I reviewed the upstream version because by definition so to say Fedora wants to have the latest version of the software, and the content in the cvs is very old. I assumed it will be easier for you to maintain a single or at least very similar spec for both places. I apologize if I made an error by this assumption. Let me know what is the URL of the files that I should have reviewed and I will do it. And yes, the relevant issues brought up re: the upstream spec file must be addressed in the Fedora version. And no, I did not touch the spec exactly because I knew that there is an active maintainer who might have a well defined agenda. As of relying on a bundled application, this is not usually permitted in Fedora and therefore they should be discussed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review