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=530743 Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|cassmodiah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |g | --- Comment #4 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-29 09:19:28 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > As the license is clearly stated in *every* source-file this shouldn't be an > issue for the package. It is, because we don't ship the sourcecode. Ether convince upstream to add the files or add one yourself. I'd prefer a single file with both license texts and a short notice which files are under the BSD license. Two more minor comments: In the patch you should set MANDIR to ${PREFIX}/share/man instead of ${PREFIX}/man Use %{_mandir}/man1/tmux.1.* instead of %{_mandir}/man1/tmux.1.gz because compression of the manpages is a transparent process done by rpmbuild. We could also switch to bz2 or lzma as discussed on fedora-packaging-list recently. Marcus, some comments on your review: You should not only check that the source matches upstream by md5, but also the mdssum. In this case it's 716b12d9ea052f57d917bf2869d419df for both. MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A Should be OK instead of N/A. :) You could also have done a scratch build like http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1776460 Apart of that, your review was good. Sven, the only remaining blocker is the license issue. -- 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