Spec URL: http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/zidrav.spec SRPM URL: http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/zidrav-1.2.0-1.src.rpm Description: ZIDRAV stands for "Zorba's Incredible Data Repairer And Verifier", and is an extremely useful tool for cross-checking files that have been transfered via HTTP, FTP, or some other method. What it does, is generates a checksum file, and then by comparing that checksum with the original file, it creates a patch file that can repair the corrupted file. Very cool, and saves re-downloading.
File matches upstream: 51f90a85723cae6f925efde35ce124c9 zidrav4unix-1.2.0.tar.gz 51f90a85723cae6f925efde35ce124c9 /tmp/zidrav4unix-1.2.0.tar.gz Licence is GPL - correct Buildroot is correct Rpmlint is clean on the binary and source RPM Make uses SMP flags - good I would change the "make" and "rm" lines in the install/clean sections %{__make} and %{__rm}. What exactly does the rpm-patch do?
Have you submitted the RPM patch upstream? It's always best to get the source patched upstream so the RPM isn't required to carry a patch that may get out of date.
New specfile uploaded: http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/zidrav.spec The patch makes the Makefile use RPM_OPT_FLAGS and adds an install: section with DESTDIR.
(In reply to comment #2) > Have you submitted the RPM patch upstream? It's always best to get the source > patched upstream so the RPM isn't required to carry a patch that may get out of > date. Not yet, but I will.
My incredibly picky eye can't find anything else wrong with this package. I don't see anything else to fix. APPROVED
Don't mean to nitpick but is your CXXFLAGS patch working ? It looks like it is still compiling with the default options... I think you also need to pass it on the make call ('make CXXFLAGS=...'). + unset DISPLAY + CXXFLAGS='-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables' + export CXXFLAGS + /usr/bin/make -j3 g++ -O2 -Wall -c flayer.cpp g++ -O2 -Wall -c core.cpp g++ -O2 -Wall -o zidrav zidrav.cpp flayer.o core.o
I uploaded a testing spec version by mistake, fixed. You can clearly see that this was done so in .src.rpm (I'm not reuploading it since nothing was changed except the spec).
So I see an APPROVED up there, but this bug is still blocking FE-NEW and isn't assigned to anyone. Scott, did you intend to review and approve this? If so, you should assign it to yourself and change the blocker bug from FE-NEW to FE-ACCEPT. In the future, when you want to review a bug, assign it to yourself and change the blocker to FE-REVIEW so other potential reviewers will know that someone's working on it.
So, who is currently reviewing this?
I'm unsure. Does Scott have fedorabugs membership? I can't verify, because the site is timing out on me.
(In reply to comment #10) > I'm unsure. Does Scott have fedorabugs membership? I can't verify, because the > site is timing out on me. It seems. ------------------------------------------------------------ Here are some of the main details about this user: muerte is Scott Baker <bakers>. Their GPG key ID is 7b709def. Comments: Member of groups: cla_done(user/approved) fedorabugs(user/approved) cvsextras(user/approved) ------------------------------------------------------------ Umm.. I don't know why Scott's mail address differs.... However, this is surely him because the user (muerte) is the maintainer of qcomicbook (bug 204343) and in the bug he uses the mail address scott .
I approved his fedorabugs soon after this came up on IRC but apparently he didn't get my note that he is now approved. Scott you can now assign this bug to yourself and change what it blocks so people know you're reviewing it and approving it. You'll have to use the bakers web-ster.com as your email address, otherwise bugzilla and the account system will have no way of knowing you are the person allowed to assign bugs.
Scott, will you * reassign this bug to yourself * change the bug status from NEW to ASSIGNED * have this bug block not FE-NEW (163776) but FE-REVIEW(163778) or FE-ACCEPT(163779) ?
Sorry for the delay there was some confusion with regards to my login.
Scott, if it really is approved, please change it to blok FE-ACCEPT.
Imported and built for devel, FC5 branch requested. Thanks for the review!