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: brazil - Extremely small footprint Java HTTP stack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426883 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[EMAIL PROTECTED] AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] | |m) ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-17 10:51 EST ------- Nice job, Mat! A very clean package. Here's my review. Everything's good to go pending spot's legal approval of the fetching (see the last question below, spot). Assuming that is given the go-ahead, this package is APPROVED. MUST items that either have comments or need looking into: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - the tarball I created using your script didn't have the same md5sum as yours, but a recursive diff of the exploded tarball resulted in no differences so I'll assume it's a timestamp thing ? specfile is legible - two grammar nit-picks (feel free to ignore my pedantry if you wish ;) : "URL based" -> "URL-based" "java" -> "Java" Questions: - does upstream not provide any build mechanism? - have you considered offering upstream your build.xml? - your signal-handling patch doesn't affect runtime, right? - is the script for fetching the source acceptable to Fedora "legal" (CCing spot)? To download myself I had to click through to accept the SPL. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
