https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025398 --- Comment #4 from Link Dupont <link@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- Hey, I'm not gone... just busy. I looked at the current GitHub repository, and noticed there are no tags at all. That's probably why I set up the version as "0" and used a specific git commit. I believe this is the procedure recommended in the packaging guidelines when upstream has not published a tagged version or tarball. With version 2.1 not existing as a tag or tarball, I'd rather version it as "0" for now. If upstream decides to apply a reproducible tag, we can use that instead. I'll open the patches as pull requests to the project. That's a good point. I haven't pushed this review request forward since I'm not sure if it qualifies for inclusion in Fedora. I think it requires a ROM file in order to run. Isn't that against the packaging guidelines? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025398 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202025398%23c4 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
