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=551911 Christian Krause <chkr@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |chkr@xxxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |chkr@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Christian Krause <chkr@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-24 12:34:43 EST --- I've roughly scanned over the package and I've seen a couple of issues. It would be good if they could be fixed first before I do the full complete review: - source files differ from upstream: sources in package: 25abd742dc4a0ffcf17c537dea6d791f SOURCES/monodevelop-boo-2.2.tar.bz2 sources from upstream: 56bf610e072030274309c94de1079b8e monodevelop-boo-2.2.tar.bz2 - the source URL does not match the link on the download page: http://ftp.novell.com/pub/mono/sources/monodevelop-boo/monodevelop-boo-2.2.tar.bz2 - some rpmlint warnings: SPECS/monodevelop-boo.spec:41: W: configure-without-libdir-spec SPECS/monodevelop-boo.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 14) monodevelop-boo-devel.i686: E: description-line-too-long The monodevelop-boo-devel package contains development files for monodevelop-boo. - directory %{_libdir}/monodevelop/AddIns/BooBinding should be included in this package: e.g. use: %files -f %{name}.lang %defattr(-,root,root,-) %{_libdir}/monodevelop/AddIns/BooBinding - License: It looks like that the License should be rather GPLv2+ instead of MIT - please can you have a look? -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review