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=520663 --- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michael.silvanus@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-28 16:45:29 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > And I would not mind if Michel Salim sponsors you, after all this is not a > popularity contest. ;-) > Well, I would not want to intrude. I only stepped in because the review looked to not be assigned to anyone, so if you want to be the official reviewer/sponsor, be my guest :) • rpmlint OK package name OK spec file name OK package guideline-compliant OK license complies with guidelines FIX license field accurate should be LGPLv2+ OK license file not deleted • spec in US English FIX spec legible Patch0 should not use %{version}, but hardcode the version number instead. Sometimes patches continue to apply unchanged for several versions, and thus you don't want to have to keep updating the patch filename. regarding configure.ac: why modify both configure.ac and configure? If you only modify the latter, you don't have to play tricks with timestamps any reason tests are not run? Why does doc require telepathy-farsight-devel to build? Oh, and the doc subpackage should be declared "BuildArch: noarch" too. OK source matches upstream $ sha1sum telepathy-qt4-0.1.10.tar.gz ../SOURCES/telepathy-qt4-0.1.10.tar.gz 15f269048f1807bb989c57f84c118b9ac9599a10 telepathy-qt4-0.1.10.tar.gz 15f269048f1807bb989c57f84c118b9ac9599a10 ../SOURCES/telepathy-qt4-0.1.10.tar.gz -- 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