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=579230 --- Comment #2 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-04-04 05:04:22 EDT --- Thanks for the review! I guess this is not an official review because the bug isn't assigned to you and the fedora‑review flag is not set. If I'm wrong please set them :-) (In reply to comment #1) > Two issues (not blocking): > > * Package name should be ok, considered that "[...] case should only be used > where necessary." > Anyway guidelines say "Keep in mind to respect the wishes of the upstream > maintainers. [...] However, if they do not express any preference of case, you > should default to lowercase naming.". > It could be good to consider to check upstream's preference. I chose this name to be consistent to what other distributions already did. Mandriva, Debian and Ubuntu call this package upnp-inspector (lower-case). Moreover, even their binary file is called upnp-inspector (lower-case). They seems to write upnp-inspector in all combination they can: UPnP-Inspector, UPnP_Inspector, upnp-inspector, upnp_inspector. So I guess they don't care very much. > *Package doesn't contain man pages and there's no online help in the > application: consider to work with upstream to add man pages (or doc in the > help menu of the program) Debian has a manpage available: http://patch-tracker.debian.org/package/upnp-inspector/0.2.2+dfsg-2 I can use that and nag upstream about providing it themselves :-) -- 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