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=493236 arthurguru <arthurg.work@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(arthurg.work@gmai | |l.com) | --- Comment #12 from arthurguru <arthurg.work@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-28 22:14:50 EDT --- Jan, Thanks for your feedback. The debuginfo rpm issue has now been resolved using RPM_OPT_FLAGS, thanks. In the meantime I've made another point release of xmlfy that also incorporates all the good work identified in this review process (branch merge). This also means the links to the RPMs have changed from the original post. Spec file http://xmlfy.sourceforge.net/submit/fedora/xmlfy.spec Source RPM http://xmlfy.sourceforge.net/submit/fedora/xmlfy-1.4.3-1.src.rpm Binary RPM derived from the above source RPM http://xmlfy.sourceforge.net/submit/fedora/xmlfy-1.4.3-1.i386.rpm Other files http://xmlfy.sourceforge.net/submit/fedora/xmlfy-debuginfo-1.4.3-1.i386.rpm Tested ok, rpmlint is content. Lubomir, Thanks for sponsoring the xmlfy project. I have enjoyed the review process and the quality it yields, and totally agree with strengthening ones knowledge of the package review guidelines rather than it being a "one-off" process. I would be more than happy to participate in an informal package review or three. How are these informal reviews conducted? Thanks to all Arthur Gouros. -- 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