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: ibmasm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193059 cweyl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cweyl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From cweyl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-05-26 00:49 EST ------- Not a review, but a couple thoughts -- which I'll preface by saying I'd love to see this one in extras <grin>: * As this isn't a kernel or a kernel module, a group of "Applications/System" is probably more appropriate than "System Environment/Kernel" * I'm pretty sure the license isn't GPL, as, e.g., ibmasm/src/rsa.h states: "This software may be used and distributed according to the terms of the Lesser GNU Public License, incorporated herein by reference". * A full upstream source URL is required, such that the code tarball can be fetched independently. * With respect to "ExclusiveArch: i386", why exclude x86_64? Is this documented somewhere? --- On a different level, why not make this a public bug? -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review