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/show_bug.cgi?id=225631 pertusus@xxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From pertusus@xxxxxxx 2007-08-27 09:33 EST ------- The package is in a much better shape. The patches are now readable, as the spec is. Well done. I still have some comments, but they are not blockers. I spot some remnants from the past: #SELINUX Patch %ifarch ppc64 #%patch4 -b .ppc64 -p1 %endif mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man1 Maybe a comment explaining that the petitboot .config file comes from a previous version so the depconfig file is recreated using make oldconfig non interactively may be added -- or something like this. You could use %__cc instead of hardcoding gcc. Using other optflags than RPM_OPT_FLAGS (like -Os) is not considered right by some reviewers. I personally don't care much, I guess you have a valid reason to do so. You must add a comment, though: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-8b14098227aebff1cf6188939e9d0877295ac448 Also the build doesn't show the options used during compilation. How can they be checked? This deserves a spec file comment. Nothing is a blocker, except if the compile flags turn out to be wrong. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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