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 Alex Orlandi <nyrk71@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |nyrk71@xxxxxxxxx Alias| |upnp-inspector Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Alex Orlandi <nyrk71@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-04-04 06:36:28 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > 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 my first intention, it would just be an informal review but considering that I spent a lot of time to do it at my best, there is no good reason to not consider this review as an official one :-) So I assign the bug to myself and I set the fedora-review to "?" Just let me know if it is worth to proceed with the doc task before the approval (see below). > (In reply to comment #1) > > > Two issues (not blocking): > > > > [...] > > 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. Yes, this is absolutely reasonable. I just wanted to consider this aspect in little more depth. It's OK. > > *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 :-) This is just a SHOULD item, so I think the package could be approved without it. Do you think it is worth to include that doc in this package? -- 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