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 #7 from Dave Anderson <anderson@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-23 14:20:56 EDT --- > 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. Not really. The upstream src.rpm (and its minimal .spec file) was added as a convenience to those users who prefer that format to the tar.gz file. > 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. The "content in the cvs" (Fedora) is currently based upon the upstream 4.0-6.3 release from last April, and its .spec file updated when Tom Calloway rebuilt it as 4.0-7 this past August. Anyway, the .spec file in the devel branch was -- as I recall -- carried over from a RHEL package version some years ago. Anyway, that's the only .spec file I've ever touched w/respect to Fedora, and that's the one that I would have presumed would be the one that would be "review-able". -- 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