Bug 226501 - Merge Review: traceroute
Merge Review: traceroute
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Dmitry Butskoy
Fedora Package Reviews List
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-01-31 16:12 EST by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:11 EST (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-06-20 03:58:48 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
dmitry: fedora‑review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 16:12:01 EST
Fedora Merge Review: traceroute

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/traceroute/
Initial Owner: mbacovsk@redhat.com
Comment 1 Dmitry Butskoy 2007-02-22 09:42:20 EST
Hmmm, nothing prevents me to review this one... ;)

All seems OK, except IMHO the dist tag (.fc7) should not be included into
changelog section. Another packages seem to not include it... (or maybe I'm wrong?)
Comment 2 Martin Bacovsky 2007-02-22 12:11:18 EST
What a surprise you took this package for review :) Can be proud father
objective enough? :) 

As for dist tags in changelog, is there any rule forbiding that? I find it
usefull to keep track when rawhide was splited to new branch. I also have it in
other packages which got fedora-review +.


Comment 3 Robert Scheck 2007-02-22 12:14:02 EST
Personally I absolutely dislike dist tag in changelog, but it should be
nothing which prevents from approving as I know of no guideline forbidding 
that. Dmitry, are you doing any formal review?
Comment 4 Dmitry Butskoy 2007-02-22 12:52:47 EST
> other packages which got fedora-review +.
[snip]
> no guideline forbidding that

OK, let's it be.

> are you doing any formal review?
Yep.

The package's .spec was derived from the tarball's .spec, which was written by
me using all FE guidelines :) . But I've re-checked things again.


Must/SHould items: OK
rmplint: OK
APPROVED.


Comment 5 Martin Bacovsky 2007-04-16 10:03:05 EDT
Reviews should be assigned to reviewer so just reassigning...

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.