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=507915 Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola(a)iki.fi&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jussi.lehtola(a)iki.fi Blocks| |182235(FE-Legal) --- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola(a)iki.fi&gt; 2009-06-24 14:08:12 EDT --- License version is not mentioned in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing so tagging FE-LEGAL for now. -- 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.

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=507915 Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola(a)iki.fi&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|182235(FE-Legal) | --- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola(a)iki.fi&gt; 2009-06-25 03:25:09 EDT --- Removing FE-LEGAL. -- 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.

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=507915 steve <steve(a)lonetwin.net&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: ldd3_pdf - |Review Request: ldd3-pdf - |Linux Device Drivers, Third |Linux Device Drivers, Third |Edition Book in PDF format |Edition Book in PDF format --- Comment #5 from steve <steve(a)lonetwin.net&gt; 2009-06-25 11:50:48 EDT --- Thanks for the correction spot. Changed the name from ldd3_pdf to ldd3-pdf. New spec and srpm are at: Spec URL: http://lonetwin.net/yum/SPECS/ldd3-pdf.spec SRPM URL: http://lonetwin.net/yum/SRPMS/ldd3-pdf-3.0-2.src.rpm -- 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.

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=507915 Jochen Schmitt <jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Jochen Schmitt <jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de&gt; 2009-06-25 13:41:08 EDT --- Good: + Basename of SPEC file matches with package name + Package name fullfill naming guidelines + Package contains a valid license tag + Package contains CA-BY-SA as a valice free license for content + Package contains a verbartin copy of the license text + URL tag shows on proper project homepage + Source tarball could be downloaded via spectool -g + Package tar ball matches with upstream (md5sum: 5cfce7586b3eed87d57c715d5ba86e17) + Consistent usage of rpm macros + Package doesn't contains subpackages + Package contains proper buildroot definition + Buildroot will be cleaned at the beginning of %clean and %install + Package is built as an noarch package + Package contains empty %build stanza + Local build works fine + Rpmlint is silent for source rpm + Rpmlint is silent for binary rpm + Local install and uninstall works fine + Sratch build on koji works fine + Files have proper file permission + %files stanza contains no duplicate entries + All Files are own by this package + No files are belong to an onther package + Package contains only documentation + Package has proper %changelog stanza Your package is APPROVED -- 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.

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=507915 --- Comment #9 from Jochen Schmitt <jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de&gt; 2009-06-25 14:48:24 EDT --- I disaggree with you in this point. Even if alle the releases contains the same content, it may be helpful to use the %{dist} tag. For example for F-12 the usage of LZMA to compress the rpm data is planed. So on the dist tag, you can see, if you can use a package for F-12 or not without a try to install it. -- 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.

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=507915 --- Comment #11 from Jochen Schmitt <jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de&gt; 2009-06-25 15:50:55 EDT --- I have got a look on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag Because this document says, that using of the dist tag is not mandotory, your solution is permitted. -- 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.

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=507915 --- Comment #13 from Jochen Schmitt <jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de&gt; 2009-06-30 14:47:11 EDT --- I want to poke the submitter of this package, that this review is APPROVEd. So he should create the CVSAdmin request for inclussion of this package into Fedora. -- 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.

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=507915 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu&gt; 2009-06-30 22:41:05 EDT --- CVS done. -- 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.

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=507915 Dennis Gregorovic <dgregor(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dgregor(a)redhat.com --- Comment #17 from Dennis Gregorovic <dgregor(a)redhat.com&gt; 2009-07-01 11:37:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) I'm not following the logic here. With the dist tag: If you have foo-1-1.fc11 in F11 and don't rebuild it, then you will have foo-1-1.f11 in F12. If you rebuild it, then you'll have foo-1-1.f12 in F12. Without the dist tag: If you have foo-1-1 in F11 and don't rebuild it, then you will have foo-1-1 in F12. If you rebuild it, then you'll have foo-1-2 or foo-1-1.1 in F12, depending on your numbering preference. The dist tag doesn't cause any additional builds and only helps when you need to rebuild. It sounds like there is some assumption that the dist tag ties a particular build to a release. That's not the case. There are plenty of .fc9 package in F10, for example. -- 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.

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=507915 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2009-07-02 10:51:58 EDT --- ldd-pdf-3.0-3.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ldd-pdf-3.0-3.fc11 -- 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.

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=507915 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |3.0-3.fc11 Resolution| |ERRATA -- 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.

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=507915 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|3.0-3.fc11 |3.0-3.fc10 -- 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.