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=494199 --- Comment #4 from Felix Kaechele <felix@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-17 15:07:42 EDT --- Here's my review: The following items have been checked and are ok: 1. rpmlint is silent 2. package name complies to guidelines 3. package meets packaging guidelines 4. sha1sums match: [felix@polaris SOURCES]$ sha1sum drascula-int-1.0.zip* 87d1b63a46bb7f3a2c1a951e8332906ac98e2eec drascula-int-1.0.zip 87d1b63a46bb7f3a2c1a951e8332906ac98e2eec drascula-int-1.0.zip.orig 5. the spec file is beautifully crafted :-) 6. the package builds on all arches (especially well on noarch ;-) 7. Requires and BuildReqs are sane 8. file ownership is ok 9. macro usage is reasonable (although one could argue that the subpackages could be named %{name}-*) 10. package contains content 11. has great .desktop files 12. doesn't own stuff it shouldn't own The following items need to be addressed: 1. License seems to be called "Revolution Software Freeware License" (http://liberatedgames.org/licenses/Revolution_Software_Freeware_License.txt). Does this affect the naming of the License in the spec? Is this GPLv2+ at all? When the license question is cleared out I will approve this package. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review