Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: busybox https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225631 pertusus@xxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus@xxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From pertusus@xxxxxxx 2007-02-18 07:39 EST ------- * instead of mv the files to reverse the patch, I suggest patch -R -p1 < %{PATCH0} * Is DOLFS really used? I can't find it in the sources * the man page timestamp should be kept with -p * buildroot is not the preferred one * At least the selinux patch should be proposed upstream. Has it been done? * the .static patch and the .anaconda are unreadable, although they bring in important changes. I think there should be a comment explaining verbally what is done * the whole process should also be commented since it is not trivial. For example something along (maybe dispatched where things are done): # in %prep the .static patch is applied, to have a static busybox # built. The executable is kept as busybox-static. # then the .static patch is reverted and the .anaconda patch is # applied to generate the busybox especially tailored for anaconda. Suggestion: * / between $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir} is not useful * use %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root) * %patch8 -b .gcc111 -p1 should certainly be %patch8 -b .gcc41 -p1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review