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=506425 Ruediger Landmann <r.landmann@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(aleksey@xxxxxxxxx | |g.ua) --- Comment #40 from Ruediger Landmann <r.landmann@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-11-18 00:00:27 EST --- Hi Aleksey -- Much better! Thank you! The two other issues in there are: [!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type in spec file: GPLv2 Files in package state "GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version". Therefore: License: GPLv2+ [!] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. * md5sums do not match: $ md5sum SOURCES/lightsquid-1.8.tgz 9b7de3d45da769ae058ac06318c56c54 SOURCES/lightsquid-1.8.tgz $ md5sum ~/Download/lightsquid-1.8.tgz 310a7e16017290232183753d73f3559d /home/rlandmann/Download/lightsquid-1.8.tgz * Please express Source0 as: Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz (preferred format according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net ) --- I also made a mistake about file ownership in the review; please disregard. There is of course no problem here. :) One last thing: improvements to my suggested wording for the descriptions: %description %{name} is a small and fast Squid log analyzer. %description apache %{name} configuration files and scripts for Apache. -- 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