|Summary:||Merge Review: nhpf|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>|
|Component:||Package Review||Assignee:||Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>|
|Status:||CLOSED WONTFIX||QA Contact:||Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2010-02-24 08:18:49 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Cloudforms Team:||---||Target Upstream Version:|
Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 20:16:48 UTC
Fedora Merge Review: nhpf http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/nhpf/ Initial Owner: firstname.lastname@example.org
Comment 1 Ville Skyttä 2007-03-03 12:27:15 UTC
Built without $RPM_OPT_FLAGS. One way to fix it is 'make CFLAG="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"' instead of 'make' in %build (note CFLAG, not CFLAGS). URL points to a "this page has moved" page, and where it's moved to doesn't look too useful. Any better one available? "Distributable" as a license is frowned upon, but I'm not sure what else to put there in this case. nhpf.c does contain the license text, it looks pretty much like BSD but isn't quite the same. Perhaps it's close enough to use "BSDish" instead of "Distributable". Anyway, it'd be nice to have the license text available in the binary packages. I'm not able to log into the Source0 FTP server to verify sources nor do I actually have much clue at all what this package is about so I'll leave rest of the review to someone else.
Comment 2 Caius Chance 2010-02-24 08:18:49 UTC
This is a dead package. Closing this bug.
Comment 3 Jason Tibbitts 2010-02-25 01:53:07 UTC
Please stop changing the summaries on merge reviews.