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=502352 Gianluca Sforna <giallu@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Gianluca Sforna <giallu@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-24 16:02:51 EDT --- Review: * package name follows naming guidelines * License (BSD) is good and matches actual one * License text is present and correctly packaged * sources matches upstream ( MD5 0111093efcb81e455e7bbd959d4cff54 ) * rpmlint is silent * build fine in mock for F10 APPROVED just a couple of final remarks. Since you included the non numeric part in the version field, please pay attention to future upgrades and use rpmdev-vercmp to check if the upgrade path is correct. There are worpress refernces in the code. I don't know if this is included/used by default in WP, but if this is the case the WP maintainer should be requiring this package instead. It would be nice if you discuss with him about the issue -- 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