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=551042 Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |overholt@xxxxxxxxxx Blocks| |182235(FE-Legal) AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |overholt@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-07 14:29:54 EDT --- Thanks for the submission. My review follows. Lines beginning with 'X' need work; lines beginning with '*' are good. I can sponsor you, too. There are just a few small issues and a legal question I have for Fedora Legal. * naming fine (I support the jakarta -> apache change) * builds on x86_64 fine * macros good * %files present and good * rpmlint output okay (ignore the maven fragment issue): $ rpmlint apache-commons-math-2.0-3.fc12.noarch.rpm apache-commons-math-javadoc-2.0-3.fc12.noarch.rpm apache-commons-math.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/apache-commons-math 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. X description too long (drop the Guiding Principles section) X license needs clarification: The license indicates there are some components that came from elsewhere or were derived from other implementation. Spot, can you clarify what the License field should read given the following license text: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/proper/math/trunk/LICENSE.txt?revision=799111 Thanks. -- 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