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=510651 Mads Kiilerich <mads@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mads@xxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Mads Kiilerich <mads@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-17 20:51:00 EDT --- Nice tool! It is less colorful than iptraf but simpler to use for getting a quick overview of what is going on. I have reviewed the package and found a couple of minor points: It seems like the spec comes from altlinux? It would be nice to state the explicit and give them credit. Perhaps we don't want to keep their old changelog. I suggest that URL should point to the english version at http://soft.risp.ru/trafshow/index_en.shtml . It is just the man page with a link to a site (in russian) where it can be downloaded. I could however not connect to the ftp download site and verify. But it seems like they only have trafshow-4.0.tgz available for download? Where do trafshow-5.2.3.tgz come from? What do the "upstream dead" comment mean? Do we want a package without a living upstream? Or is you de facto the upstream and willing to take that responsibility? The "cflags" and "make install" "comments" should perhaps just be removed. The other comment(s) could also be cleaned up. The %doc INSTALL isn't relevant in the package and shouldn't be included. There seems to be a spurious tab in the changelog. The spec is also partially aligned using tabs. Either do it consistently or don't do it. -- [Looking for sponsor and review on bug 509936] -- 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