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=503975 --- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2009-06-04 05:34:27 EDT --- Not much to check: OK: rpmlint is clean OK: spec file is legible and in English, macros are used consistently OK: license is Fedora approved OK: name respects Fedora Naming Guidelines OK: spec name is same as package name OK: source matches upstream OK: time stamps are preserved OK: package owns all directories or requires packages that own them OK: all relevant files included in %doc, files in %doc are not needed for operation OK: permissions are set properly OK: no file conflicts or general names OK: %{?dist} used in release OK: builds in mock. NEEDSWORK: License tag is incorrect, should be: GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ and Public Domain NEEDSWORK: SHOULD: Package does not contain license texts, query upstream to include them. -- 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