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=530747 --- Comment #10 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-14 15:50:33 EDT --- Ohh, very sorry, i missed this review. Linus, why license should be MIT? Offsite http://code.kryo.se/iodine/ say it released under ISC. (In reply to comment #9) > I add few comments about spec file from a src.rpm mentioned in comment #5: > - it's better to have two binary packages (why should I have client installed > on server side?) Why you shouldn't have it? > - indentation in the spec is a bit inconsistency: there are few parameters > which have not enough TABs See 0 post and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PavelAlexeev/tabsize > - there is new version 0.6.0-rc1 Yes. And it is not stable. Does it fix some critical bugs? > - line '#% configure' looks redundant Indeed. It is not important, meantime deleted. > - I prefer to see explicit names in the %files section for files under > %{_sbindir}, because the binaries in such package might be changed There already no globbing, only explicit names: %{_sbindir}/%{name} %{_sbindir}/%{name}d > - for me the '-c' option in the CFLAGS is odd, I guess the patch of Makefile > could fix the oddness I'm do not sure this is bug to report it upstream. Can you say something about it? > P.S. What is the actual status of this package? Again sorry for miss review. -- 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