https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2300197 Jonathan Steffan <jonathansteffan@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Steffan <jonathansteffan@xxxxxxxxx> --- [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. I reviewed the patch and upstream cmake and wonder if it should be expanded and submitted upstream? Seems like a pretty stale project so maybe it's not worth it. With that, we are setting a downstream soname version. Is it best to use a date coded version or just set it to 0 so if upstream ever does proper versioning we wont be in the way? What is currently patched is valid, just documenting the decision. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Upstream tests not working so this is disabled intentionally. APPROVED -- 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=2300197 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202300197%23c2 -- _______________________________________________ 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
