Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ssmtp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188400 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-10-09 04:48 EST ------- Thank you for the new review. As suggested, I have removed the "provides" for the man pages and stubs which do nothing. I have also added the "-p" switch, but a quick look shows no differences in the behaviour... Maybe because %doc already preserves the timestamps and man pages are gzipped before being packaged. Nothing else is preserved from upstream. The fact that the included patches were retrieved from Debian and Mandrake respectively is mentioned in the very first entry of the Changelog. I have decided to rename the patches in order to maintain the more-or-less standard policy of patch names used in RH. The included Debian patch is still at revision 6 because - major change in revision 7 is IPv6; the others are just Debian related. Unfortunately I have no IPv6 support around and cannot test - major change in rev 8 is the switch from openssl to gnutls. For the time being I cannot afford to test this either because all of the machines I run ssmtp on are production machines. Not to mention that the first listed change in rev7 is "ssmtp maintained via alioth: http://alioth.debian.org/projects/ssmtp/"; but the link says "This Project Has Not Released Any Files" :) I will again into the SSL differences some time later, probably next month. New versions of the spec file and SRPMS are available at http://wdl.lug.ro/linux/rpms/ssmtp/. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review