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=524332 --- Comment #6 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus <stefan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-28 16:14:26 EDT --- I wasn't 100% sure if the timestamps are important for compiled binaries. Therefore, I interpreted the Guidelines very strictly. I had a similar conversation on IRC and the outcome was that the timestamps are quite important for noarch packages. But that's not the case here so I agree with both of you. Thanks for clarification ;-) $ rpmdiff dualscreen-mouse-utils-0.5-2.fc10.src.rpm dualscreen-mouse-utils-0.5-3.fc10.src.rpm S.5..... SUMMARY S.5.......T dualscreen-mouse-utils.spec $ diff -u a/dualscreen-mouse-utils.spec b/dualscreen-mouse-utils.spec ... -Summary: Utilities for use with dual head setups using independend screens +Summary: Utilities for use with dual head setups using independent screens ... -Release: 2%{?dist} +Release: 3%{?dist} ... +* Mon Sep 28 2009 Christian Krause <chkr@xxxxxxxxxxx> - 0.5-3 +- Fix spelling mistake + Looks good to me. Package dualscreen-mouse-utils-0.5-3.fc10.src.rpm with sha256sum e16a46cf4e50cdca72ea1fc03a4d138ac341ec9e6ad478fb55b086586557fca1 APPROVED. -- 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