On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 13:40:57 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers wrote: > > > PS Some of it could even be "legally" required in the sense that eg. > > > fedora.us started its amavisd-new package from my SPEC file and I can't > > > even peek to see what exactly they have changed. Bugzilla has some broken > > > links, but there it ends. No SRPM, no SPEC file, no clue :) > > > > fedora.us spec files have been available separately for a very long > > time linked at the top of http://fedora.us > > > > http://www.fedora.us/tempspecs/ > > Well, those only contain the published RPMs SPEC files. My amavisd-new > example is a real example. Ah, unpublished packages. That explains it. https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1496#c16 Well, if the packager's download site is not reachable, the package can't be reviewed either. Maybe it's just a temporary problem. Maybe the packager doesn't even know about it. You could add a comment to above ticket and tell him. Some packagers also provide extracted spec files at their download site. I think it's not in fedora.us' responsibility to make available spec files of unpublished packages (which can be arbitrary packages in the package queue). -- Repository Mixing Problems http://www.fedora.us/wiki/RepositoryMixingProblems Fedora Core release 2 (Tettnang) - Linux 2.6.9-1.2_FC2