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=546169 --- Comment #13 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-11 05:27:30 EDT --- 1) See my reply to your thread on fedora-devel-list 2) Quoting from comment 10: > Next time, investigate before you say something! > I really have a feeling you are trying to be more of a blocker > than a contributor. :-/ Fix your attitude, please. 3) Package is not ready yet. It would be insane to approve it or what is offered at the libtar-ng project site. I consider myself another blocker as I see multiple issues: * It conflicts with "libtar" not just all file names, but also in the SONAME. * The src.rpm does not even attempt at trying to resolve the conflicts with libtar. * Mind you, the original libtar maintainer has written he might want to return to maintaining _his_ libtar, but based on an already started albeit unfinished rewrite. This asks for further conflicts if you are serious about making your libtar-ng use a libtar ABI+API. * Packaged tarball only adds a README.new in an ambiguous way as the COPYRIGHT and README files have not been touched (despite having received a fresh file timestamp). The new web page is not mentioned anywhere. Instead, references to old web pages are still found. * Hints: Remove the superfluous autom4te.cache directory and their contents prior to packaging up the libtar-ng tarball. Cuts the tarball size in half. Additionally, prefer bzip2 over gzip. -- 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