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=616580 Jochen Schmitt <jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Jochen Schmitt <jochen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-22 13:19:40 EDT --- Good: + basename of the SPEC file has the same name as the package. + package zip file matches with upstream one (md5sum: fe26a1f85d7f367781e0f8764552dff7) + Package has consistantly usage of rpm macros + Package is build for noarch + Package has a valid license tag + Package has OFL as a valid font license for fedora. + package has no subpackage + locel build works fine + Rpmlint is quite for binary package + Build works fine on koji + Package has small %doc stanza, so no seperate subpackage is require + Package has proper %Changelog Bad: - Why do you call the package tlomt-junction. the upstream sources has the name junction and the official fontname I see on forntforge is Junction too. - downloaded package wia spectool -g has not the upstream filename which was based by the query string. Sorry, this was my part. We should revert the change between -1 and -2 and add a comment why we don't put the URL in the Source0 tag. question: How to you have determinate the version number of your package. - Verbatin text of the license which is provided by the upstream is not provide by the 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