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=683587 Christos Triantafyllidis <christos.triantafyllidis@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |christos.triantafyllidis@gm | |ail.com --- Comment #1 from Christos Triantafyllidis <christos.triantafyllidis@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-14 04:09:38 EDT --- Hi Mattias, although i can only do an unofficial review, i think that there is an issue with these packages. As rpmlint reports, there is no link to upstream source packages. (I'm putting just the putting the el5 report): $ rpmlint gsissh.el5.spec gsissh.el5.spec:37: W: macro-in-comment %{version} gsissh.el5.spec:38: W: macro-in-comment %{version} gsissh.el5.spec:327: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build fipshmac $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/gsissh \ gsissh.el5.spec:328: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build fipshmac $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sbindir}/gsisshd \ gsissh.el5.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: openssh-4.3p2-noacss.tar.bz2 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. I saw your comment about the ACSS in the SPEC file but i think this would be much much clearer if you used the upstream openssh package and added a patch file that removes the ACCS cipher. Fedora reviewing guidelines require: MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. Regards, Christos -- 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