Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: busybox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225631
varekova(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |varekova(a)redhat.com
Flag| |fedora-review?
------- Additional Comments From varekova(a)redhat.com 2007-02-19 10:32 EST -------
Thanks for your comments.
The fixed version is busybox-1.2.2-6.fc7.
(In reply to comment #1)
* instead of mv the files to reverse the patch, I suggest
patch -R -p1 < %{PATCH0}
changed
* Is DOLFS really used? I can't find it in the sources
removed
* the man page timestamp should be kept with -p
fixed
* buildroot is not the preferred one
fixed
* At least the selinux patch should be proposed upstream. Has it
been done?
I'm investigating it.
* the .static patch and the .anaconda are unreadable, although they
bring in important changes. I think there should be a comment
explaining verbally what is done
* the whole process should also be commented since it is not
trivial.
For example something along (maybe dispatched where things are done):
# in %prep the .static patch is applied, to have a static busybox
# built. The executable is kept as busybox-static.
# then the .static patch is reverted and the .anaconda patch is
# applied to generate the busybox especially tailored for anaconda.
changed
Suggestion:
* / between $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir} is not useful
* use %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root)
*
%patch8 -b .gcc111 -p1
should certainly be
%patch8 -b .gcc41 -p1
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.