Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664817 Petr Pisar <ppi...@redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW AssignedTo|ppi...@redhat.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org Flag|fedora-review? | --- Comment #5 from Petr Pisar <ppi...@redhat.com> 2011-01-31 04:31:50 EST --- I understand perfectly. The guidelines says you should explicitly depend because it can move to different package. At fist you can prevent problem now, you do not need to wait for breaking things later. At second the package builds even after `breakage'. It will just use old possibly buggy module. Adding explicit dependency you assure using latest dual-lived package. This question is not about willing or not willing. This is about compliance to guidelines. As the spec file does not comply to guidelines statement I quoted above, I cannot approve this package. You can try your luck with another reviewer, although I think the guidelines are the same for all reviewers and packagers. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
