[Bug 187609] Review Request: tre - POSIX compatible regexp library with approximate matching

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: tre - POSIX compatible regexp library with approximate matching


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187609





------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2006-08-02 19:00 EST -------
Two issues left that I see: 

1. rpmlint still complains about 
W: tre mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs

The top part of your tre.spec file uses tabs instead of spaces. This isn't a 
blocker, but might be nice to replace those tabs with spaces for consistancy. 

2. Instead of ExclusiveArch, you should use ExcludeArch on x64... 
Even though there has been no testing on ppc, it should probibly be included 
until there is a report of it not working, it shouldn't be excluded just 
because you aren't able to test it. From the package review guidelines:

- MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an 
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in 
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed 
in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work 
on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next 
to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla 
entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the 
comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and 
replace the long explanation with the bug number. (Extras Only) The bug should 
be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking 
such issues:  FE-ExcludeArch-x86,  FE-ExcludeArch-x64,  FE-ExcludeArch-ppc


-- 
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.