https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967517
Honza Horak <hho...@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|needinfo?(hho...@redhat.com |
|) |
--- Comment #3 from Honza Horak <hho...@redhat.com> ---
Thanks for taking up this review.
(In reply to Adam Williamson from comment #1)
> I'll take this, since I requested it...
>
> So, question #1, why the Epoch? If you're thinking you need an epoch because
> you want to obsolete a higher-versioned package, I don't think you do. A new
> package with a different name can obsolete a higher-versioned old package.
OK, I removed "Provides: rdate..." and also Epoch.
(In reply to Adam Williamson from comment #2)
> License should be "BSD and BSD with advertising"
Changed to "BSD and BSD with advertising".
Adjusted spec and srpm:
Spec URL: http://hhorak.fedorapeople.org/openrdate-review/openrdate.spec
SRPM URL:
http://hhorak.fedorapeople.org/openrdate-review/openrdate-1.2-2.fc18.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=UQJ6fiuUPX&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
