Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tremulous-data - Data files for tremulous the FPS game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204125 matthias@xxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From matthias@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-09-05 05:33 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > Nope, in tremolous.spec it says: > # this is %{name}-%{version}-src.tar.gz as containted in: > # http://dl.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.zip > # with the src/tools/lcc dir removed as that contains non Free software > > Notice the subtile difference, which makes each explain prettty exact what the > tarbal is and how it was created. Sorry, I got confused. I see what you mean now. I still don't see any dot at the end of the %description :-) Anyway, here we go for the formal review. - License is CC Attribution-ShareAlike, which falls into the "binary firmware" exception, since it is redistribuable and doesn't have any commercial use restrictions, good - rpmlint complains only about the License, good - Spec file seems fine, three minor nitpicks : - The Source1 "tremulous-copyright.txt" gets installed as "fedora-copyright.txt", why two different names? - Maybe you should uncomment the %build line, even though the section is empty, since IIRC not having %build has already caused weird things to happen. - It's "basically", not "basicly". - Builds and runs (with the main tremulous of course) fine, good Most other MUST/SHOULD don't apply, so for me the package is APPROVED. Don't forget to build it only for a single distro and request the packages to be copied over in order to save space on mirror server (hardlinks) and during upgrades. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review