Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458685 --- Comment #13 from Pierre-YvesChibon <pingou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-08-18 11:20:25 EDT --- Ok, Sorry for the delay I have been away for few days. > comment #8 Let me explain my though, this is my first project that I package, I have almost never seen the spec file in the sources that I packaged and did not know about the rpmbuild -ta. I have always been working with src.rpm also because it is supposed to be the base of the review and what is available with yumdownload --source. But I understand that some people could be interested on having the specfile with the source. Thanks for the information. > Comment #9 That was indeed my question I could not find you on the FAS. > Comment #10 Thanks for the light, that was actually my question, I never faced a project with the spec file furnished (especially because I assume that the spec file can be rather different in OS like SuSE compare to Fedora -- just my guess I do not know enough SuSE). Anyway there is a new version which include the spec file into the sources for the people who do not like src.rpm :) http://pingoured.fr/public/R2spec/R2spec.spec http://pingoured.fr/public/R2spec/R2spec-2.4.0.tar.gz http://pingoured.fr/public/R2spec/R2spec-2.4.0-1.fc9.src.rpm I corrected the python-devel and I think the tar.gz instead of tar Fedorahosted server seems to be down at the moment but I will upload the new version as soon as I get an access back. Regards, Pierre -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review