[Bug 576591] Review Request: iptraf-ng

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576591

--- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> 2010-11-22 23:20:49 EST ---
Doesn't look like anything has happened with this ticket in quite some time.

A few random comments:

The previous comment is correct; it is not appropriate to conflict with iptraf.
 Instead, you should have a proper Obsoletes:/Provides: pair.  The guideline
that was being referred to is
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Renaming.2Freplacing_existing_packages

The original iptraf spec looks a bit cleaner than this one; for some reason
those terrible macros like "%{__rm}" snuck in.  If you for some reason like the
extra typing and decreased readability and really want to use them, you need to
be consistent about it and use them everywhere (which means using
"%{__install}" and not using plain "rm").  Or you could just drop them
entirely.  (Honestly I dislike them enough that I simply don't review packages
that use them.)

I see that development is continuing; what's the current version?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.