Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: stapitrace - user space instruction trace https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445224 ------- Additional Comments From jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx 2008-06-20 08:22 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8) > > Needs fixing: > > > > package meets naming and versioning guidelines. > > package builds in mock: > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=664952&name=build.log > > package installs properly. (couldn't check) > > debuginfo package looks complete. (couldn't check) > > final provides and requires are sane (couldn't check) > > if shared libraries are present, make sure ldconfig is run > > So, the only issue under the "Needs fixing" category is the build error you got > in mock. I'll look into that one. That, and the naming. See below. > Also, did you have any response to my questions (in previous comment) about how > I should be referencing the source: tarball vs. CVS If you are still working on the feature upstream and it's not released as of yet, I would recommend a CVS snapshot and a pre-release package, yes. Once the utility is included in a real upstream tarball, you can fixup the RPM specfile to use that. While it's a bit more work upfront for the packager, it more accurately reflects the state of the package upstream and gives you a bit more flexibility if you want to respin the snapshot to bring in more fixes, etc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review