https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852898 --- Comment #9 from Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #8) > It looks like we can go forwards and finalize this review. > > According to the previous review, the package is good and therefore APPROVED. Would you please be so kind and not rush it overly hasty. Sending a private mail off-list asking me to look back into this package and then to approve the package 1/2 hour later is not necessarily nice. Therefore, I am going to reiterate what I answered a couple of : Did you check this package works on all Fedora architectures? Last time I checked, running testsuite on different architectures exposed arch-dependent bugs of this package. Therefore, I am considering to propose to make the srpm "arch'ed" (BuildArch != noarch) and to make the binary package a "noarched" subpackage (Arch: noarch). I know this diverges from Fedora's "common rules", however this would assure the testsuite is being run as part of building on all Fedora architectures, while the final binary rpm would still be "noarched". -- 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