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=531605 --- Comment #9 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2009-11-30 14:49:51 EDT --- Well, I guess I am willing to sponsor you, even though I am a bit busy with work. Do you have any other submissions? Please fill in your surname in bugzilla. You should do a few informal reviews, so that I can see that you are familiar with the guidelines. An overview of the review process is available here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process Here are the most important guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines In addition to these, there are a bunch of language and application specific guidelines, that are linked to in the Packaging guidelines. Furthermore, you may need these http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues Please perform informal reviews only on _unassigned_ bugs that are *not* marked with the FE-NEEDSPONSOR tag, as I will need to do the formal review after you have done the informal one. PS. Adjust your spec file to 80 character width. This is most important to do with the stuff that can be seen with $ rpm -qi packmol i.e. the summary, description and changelog (which can be seen with rpm -q --changelog packmol). Are you sure you ran rpmlint on *all* of the packages? If you didn't run it on the srpm, you need to run it on the spec. -- 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