[Bug 968339] Review Request: ps_mem - Memory profiling tool

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968339

Jaromír Cápík <jcapik@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED

--- Comment #6 from Jaromír Cápík <jcapik@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
Hi Greg.

> 
> 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.
> 

Sorry, I thought you know koji ...
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=12860

The packages can be downloaded from there without waiting for testing.
Just select the latest release for your fedora version and download the right
package from the RPMs section. Let me know if you encounter any problem.
I don't wanna introduce unwanted empty sections just because of the
fedora-review bug.


> > 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.

Ok. That's definitely doable. Let me upload new files.


> 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.

Don't worry. I'll create the branches and they'll eventually stay empty once we
know the decision.

-- 
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=x4xvzta2Zl&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]