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
pertusus(a)free.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pertusus(a)free.fr
------- Additional Comments From pertusus(a)free.fr 2007-02-18 07:39 EST -------
* instead of mv the files to reverse the patch, I suggest
patch -R -p1 < %{PATCH0}
* Is DOLFS really used? I can't find it in the sources
* the man page timestamp should be kept with -p
* buildroot is not the preferred one
* At least the selinux patch should be proposed upstream. Has it
been done?
* 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.
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.