https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968339 Greg Bailey <gbailey@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Greg Bailey <gbailey@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jaromír Cápík from comment #4) > > Defining the commit hash in form of global is unfortunately more work for > the mainainer, since it is easier to simply copy'n'paste the whole link when > browsing the scripts in the raw mode. As any additional line makes the spec > file longer and less synoptic, I would try to avoid globals in this case. OK, style difference then... > According to the following bug, the fedora-review issue has been fixed. > Please update to the fixed package and recheck. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967571 The new "fedora-review" RPM is not yet available in the testing repository; it'd be quicker for you to just add the empty '%build' tag. > Regarding timestamps. It's good to preserve timestamps of the files stored > in the upstream archive, but in this case the file was downloaded directly > without consequent unpacking and the timestamp was invalidated during the > download phase even when I tried to use the wget -N / curl -R options. I > rechecked that few minutes ago and I'm always getting today's date, so it > seems the server doesn't offer this capability. The previous timestamp was > incorrect due to a strange clock skew in my virtual machine. There's no > reason for preserving invalid timestamps. Anyway, I see this issue as minor > and don't want it to block the script introduction. I think it's a good idea to at least add the "-p" option to the cp and install commands. It's more useful to preserve the timestamp of when you (the packager) retrieved the file(s) from the original URL vs. the timestamp of when the RPM was built. > Regarding the EPEL stuff. At the moment I'm waiting for PM to decide if the > script is worthy for being included in the official branches and therefore I > don't want to introduce this package with explicit EPEL5/6 artifacts which > make the spec file more dirty for non-EPEL Fedora branches. I'm not sure what "waiting for PM to decide" means. Are you saying that this might be added to the Red Hat Enterprise distribution? If you're uncomfortable adding the parts required for EPEL 5, you can leave them out for now. I'd ask that you at least create a branch for EPEL 6; the spec file will work as is for that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=U5gkZIcACa&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review