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=506954 --- Comment #3 from Mike Bonnet <mikeb@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-16 15:49:58 EDT --- You know version 2.4 is available, right? After the review is complete you may want to consider updating to that version. Tarball in the specfile matches upstream tarball: $ md5sum uberftp-client-2.3.tar.gz uberftp-review/uberftp-client-2.3.tar.gz f5b1febe3b705c8ddf23c7fc05d70e7b uberftp-client-2.3.tar.gz f5b1febe3b705c8ddf23c7fc05d70e7b uberftp-review/uberftp-client-2.3.tar.gz rpmlint output is clean: $ rpmlint -v *.rpm uberftp.i586: I: checking uberftp.src: I: checking uberftp-debuginfo.i586: I: checking 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source code is NCSA licensed and a copy of the license text is included in the copyright file in the source tarball. The copyright file must be included in %doc according to the packaging guidelines. Built successfully (again) in Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1432298 If you look at the build log it looks like %{optflags} is getting included twice in the gcc invocations: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1480256&name=build.log Not a huge deal, but maybe something that should be investigated upstream. -- 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