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=462982 Bruno Cornec <bruno_cornec@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bruno_cornec@xxxxxx --- Comment #12 from Bruno Cornec <bruno_cornec@xxxxxx> 2008-10-03 08:14:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) > In order to make tracking easier for everyone, please bump the release tag each > time you modify the spec file (and _add_ a corresponding changelog entry, not > _replace_ the previous one as you have done). For instance > Ok, the next one is -3 now so. > %changelog > * Thu Oct 02 2008 Bruno Cornec <bruno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 1.19-2.fc9 > - fix compilation flags > > * Sat Sep 20 2008 Bruno Cornec <bruno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 1.19-1.fc9 > - Updated to 1.19 Ok. Will try to do that properly for -3 tag. In fact I have a fake changelog I generate for test packages, and a real one for official packages. Now we are approaching that step, it makes sense. > as of 02.oct.2008, ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/test/fedora/9/buffer.spec still > has the missing "s" in Summary(fr). My mistake, I wasn't looking at the right line. For my own knowledge what is the tool you're using for conformity checking. I just know rpmlint. What else exists ? > > I will take a look at your other packages and if satisfied I will sponsor you. Thanks. So new versions available at: ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/test/fedora/9/buffer.spec and ftp://ftp.mondorescue.org/test/fedora/9/buffer-1.19-3.fc9.src.rpm -- 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