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: fakeroot - Gives a fake root environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220888 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163776 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-04 22:46 EST ------- (In reply to comment #13) > > we should keep what is in the Guidelines; and doing otherwise is therefore a > > blocker > > This is not a MUST item, so this can't block the package. And if you still > think > strongly about it you can and should revive the discussion on > fedora-packaging. (In reply to comment #14) > Peter, BuildRoot is a should/recommended/preferred item (not MUST) in the > Guidelines. If you're going to be inflexible here, please withdraw yourself > as reviewer, and let someone else do it. Actually, it *is* a MUST item. The ReviewGuidelines explicitly state: "MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines." Part of the packaging guidelines is this BuildRoot determination. Though it is only a highly recommended value when the usage of "preferred" is literally taken; it is the spirit of the guidelines that makes this a requirement IMHO. The guidelines are there to ensure that packages going into Fedora all meet the same level of high quality assurance standards. While it is understandable that there are those packages which cannot meet specific guidelines for valid reasons, making the tag more terse than it already is is not one of them to me. (No disrespect intended, but how hard is it, really, to copy and paste the "BuildRoot: ..." line from the Guidelines wiki page? ^_^) If the Guidelines mean otherwise, why does it not mention any proper alternative? We seem to be in much disagreement about this, having reached somewhat of an impasse on these terms. I'm afraid I am therefore unable, in good conscience, review your submitted packages. Unfortunately, from a cursory glance at the .spec and rpmlint, this appears to be the only major issue that I can spot. Take care. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
