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=506431 --- Comment #8 from Mat Booth <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-27 16:33:26 EDT --- There's really not a lot wrong with this package, which is good. After going through all the applicable guidelines, here are my only comments: * You make a comment about the zero-length file, so I'm fine with that. * Could you make a comment about what your patches do and whether they need to go upstream or not? * The plugin includes a copy of the licence in "about.html", so you must at least include that as a %doc. * As is the case with source archives generated from source control, the sum doesn't match what your script generates, but diff says they are identical so that's fine. * And for bonus points, in the package description, "syntax highlighting" should start with an upper-case S, but I'm really nit-picking now. :-) * The package appears to work - but it complained about my preferences when I tried to preview one of the samples. I assume my complete ignorance of Latex is to blame. I also agree with Comment #1 about the tar file: * Please either gzip your source archive in the script (tar czvf, perhaps?) or omit the .gz file extension; it would be nice if it matched the file type. ;-) -- 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