Bug 516779 - Review Request: libbitmask - multi-word bitmask library
Summary: Review Request: libbitmask - multi-word bitmask library
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ivana Varekova
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 516782 516790
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2009-08-11 13:54 UTC by Jan Safranek
Modified: 2010-08-17 13:39 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
: 516790 (view as bug list)
Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-08-17 13:39:44 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
varekova: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)
proposed .spec file (1.72 KB, text/plain)
2010-08-17 13:36 UTC, Jan Safranek 		no flags Details
View All

Description Jan Safranek 2009-08-11 13:54:58 UTC 
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jsafrane/libcpuset/libbitmask.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jsafrane/libcpuset/libbitmask-2.0-1.fc11.src.rpm
Description: Simple multi-word bitmask library, required by libcpuset
Comment 1 Jan Safranek 2009-08-11 13:58:59 UTC 
libcpuset is reviewed as bug #516782
Comment 2 Ivana Varekova 2009-08-12 06:47:44 UTC 
1/ please change BuildRoot: 
to
%(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
(recommended one in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines)
2/ AUTHORS -file could be add to documentation

that`s all.
Comment 3 Jan Safranek 2009-08-12 07:43:53 UTC 
1, 2, 3: done

I uploaded new .spec and .srpm to aforementioned location.
Comment 4 Ivana Varekova 2009-08-12 07:58:42 UTC 
Looks ok now.
Comment 5 Ivana Varekova 2010-08-17 12:41:44 UTC 
Are you folks interested in continuing?
This would be closed if there will be no response soon.
Comment 6 Jan Safranek 2010-08-17 13:36:17 UTC 
Created attachment 439111 [details]
proposed .spec file

I am not interested in libbitmask in Fedora anymore, feel free to close the review. I'm attaching current .spec file in case someone wants to continue with review (and maintain the package afterwards).
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.