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: libtune - standard API to access the kernel tunables https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=210007 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-08-31 09:16 EST ------- 1) variables: The %{distro_string} is used too. Since it is built from the %{family} and %{release} variables, we can say they are all used. 2) base_kernel: uname -r would give me something like "2.6.21-1.3194.fc7", while I only need the first 3 fields of it: "2.6.21" 3) kernel required: Don't need to require the exact kernel, since several releases are supported, starting from 2.6.9. Actually, I want to avoid changing my spec file each time the kernel changes. That's why I'm extracting the running kernel release. 4) Licensing: Fixed - But rpmlint should be fixed accordingly: it is now telling me my License string is invalid. May be there was another version released after license guidelines has changed? 5) dot Whish one are you talking about? Couldn't find anything about dots in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-ef67b32cfe3903b0aaab1b3c920940769007da6a 6) distro_string: I actually only changed it in the tunables-distro-data description. The problem is that anyewhere else, the "FC7" string is used instead of f7. So I would have to change things upstream. But if it is really a problem, please tell me and I'll do the changes, since I am the upstream. SPEC URL: http://www.bullopensource.org/libtune/libtune-0.12-4/libtune.spec SRPM URL: http://www.bullopensource.org/libtune/libtune-0.12-4/libtune-0.12-4.fc7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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
