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=490061 Christoph Wickert <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Christoph Wickert <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-28 13:54:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > Sorry i dont understand this one; i read the guidelines and it seems to be > correct to version the package 0.5.1c, as it is the third bugfix release under > version 0.5.1 I was under the impression that characters were not allowed in releases and are always moved to the release field. But you are correct, the wiki does not say so explicitly. If you like you can stick with 0.5.1c-1%{?dist}, but I'd prefer 0.5.1-1%{?dist}.c Let's see what we have now: OK - License tag matches actual license (GPLv2+) OK - %files section fixed: package owns %{_sysconfdir}/alsa.d and %{_datadir}/soundfonts/ OK - Time stamps preserved during install OK - Permissions of files are correct. The package awesfx-0.5.1c-2.fc9.src.rpm is APPROVED. -- 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