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=226557 Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pertusus@xxxxxxx |nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #10 from Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx> 2009-03-22 06:19:44 EDT --- I don't use fedora anymore so I cannot have the final say, nor do many of the checks, but it looks good from reading the spec. Only 3 comments, * some patches could have a comment, namely xfig-3.2.5-color-resources.patch and xfig-3.2.5-debian.patch, others were rather straightforward, or explained by corresponding entries in changelog * I'd prefer xfig-3.2.4-redhat.patch not to be named like that, but rather along xfig-3.2.4-commands.patch for downstream reuse of spepc and patches * I's still prefer Provides: %{name}(executable) = %{version}-%{release} I am not sure that any of these constitutes a blocker. I'll remove myself to the assignee, since I cannot really formally do the review, but from my point of view it is fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review