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=455168 --- Comment #14 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@xxxxx> 2010-04-21 07:38:59 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) > I'm not sure how this package passed review: it's broken out of the box, > doesn't work on 64-bit and has a missing dependency. See bug 584281. I'm not sure how could we have bugs in the package collection at all when the packages are being reviewed before import. Also, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to post crap in a closed review request just to offend the reviewer. Mon deals with missing dependencies gracefully, expecting not that the required tools are not present, making the first two issues somehow philosophical issues, rather than technical. But, given we don't have a soft dependency mechanism, I agree with your point here, just don't think it's that serious to skip. (By the way, obfuscation of perl's module import mechanism with eval around use caused Authen::PAM dependency to be ignored by automatic Perl dependency generation mechanism, thus it was somehow intended by upstream as well). Regarding the portability problem, packaging guidelines require the packager as well as the reviewer to test and run on at least one platform. Sure that's no good excuse for a broken package, shame on me for not realizing that there's a problem with that, but I think it is completely understandable how could the reviewer not notice that as well. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review