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=493232 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-04 04:08:39 EDT --- Hi, I went through the package. There are a few issues: * Guidelines say: All patches should have an upstream bug link or comment. Since this project is pretty old I don't think it matters to send these patches upstream. But at least, you should briefly explain in the SPEC file what each of them does. Ref: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment * COPYING file _must_ go to %doc ! CHANGES file can go to %doc ? There is a mod and a wrapper shell script in the contrib/ directory. Are they worth packaging? ! %attr(755,root,root) is redundant, can be removed * gcc warnings: There are a couple of these warnings (gcc44): redir.c:496: warning: passing argument 3 of 'getsockname' from incompatible pointer type /usr/include/sys/socket.h:119: note: expected 'socklen_t * __restrict__' but argument is of type 'size_t *' I'm sure these can be fixed easily. * optflags are not passed during the linking phase. At the least "-g -Wall" should be passed. To be safe, you can add LDFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" to the end of the make line. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review