[Bug 225631] Merge Review: busybox

[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: Merge Review: busybox


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225631


pertusus at free.fr changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pertusus at free.fr




------- Additional Comments From pertusus at 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.