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=515049 --- Comment #4 from Pierre-YvesChibon <pingou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-01 15:59:05 EDT --- I still do the review: + rpmlint silent: 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + package name ok + spec file name ok ! License should be GPLv2+ as it seems to fit best the source code and the README file. You might want to contact upstream to ask him to correct the tag on the website. ! source0 is not correct, please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL + package compiles on koji : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1572748 + BuildRequires are ok + No translation available + Package owns its files + No duplicated files listed + Permissions ok + %clean present + Package code not content + No large documentation + No headers nor static + No pkgconfig files + No .so files + No .la files + No GUI available + Clean at the beginning of %install - The license file being not present in the sources you might want to ask upstream to include one - Worked on the .dvi I used This package is for sure quite clean, few minor issues that we can easily fix. I unfortunately cannot sponsor you. -- 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