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=809614 --- Comment #2 from adev <adev88@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-04-04 12:31:04 EDT --- > I'm happy to take this up, but can you provide some details on why this is not going as an update to the 'gfal' package, which is already in Fedora? gfal 2.0 breaks API compatibility of gfal 1.0, it's a new library written from scratch. The both can coexist and will have to coexist in order to make the migration easy. > After a quick look, the spec seems to take the code from a 'main' branch, wouldn't it be better to build from a tag instead > After a quick look, the spec seems to take the code from a 'main' branch, wouldn't it be better to build from a tag instead. The source comes from the Source0 field, that is a tarball "tagged". The commented link present of the spec is purely indicative and provides a direct link to the upstream of the component. This format follow the same pattern than in the other already approved lcg-utils components : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=790347 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768174 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768183 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768310 > The version number also looks special. gfal 2.0 is still in pre-release and normally follows packaging name rules for pre-releases : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages -- 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