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=480855 Christoph Wickert <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |cassmodiah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | |g --- Comment #5 from Christoph Wickert <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-07 06:03:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > -------REVIEW BOURNAL------- It would ne bice to know which file was actually reviewed, because the spec above mentions 1.3-2, but the srpm is 1.3-1. The only thing that is different so the release, the rest of the spec is the same. Group "Applications/Internet" seems wrong to me, I'd rather use "Applications/Productivity" or "Applications/Text" > -------------- > MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other > packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed > should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This > means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with > any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you > feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another > package owns, then please present that at package review time. > OK FAIL. The package owns %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/, which it shouldn't, because it belongs to hicolor-icon-theme already is a requirement of 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