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=768500 Lukáš Zapletal <lzap@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Lukáš Zapletal <lzap@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-01-02 14:27:19 EST --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3614692 FORMAL REVIEW MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.[4] The LICENSE file is missing, distribution for all subpackages is recommended. MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. I would suggest to add one line instructing user to install tito, not all of use know what tito is. Not a blocker. Excelent work for such a complicated package, only minor points. *** APPROVED *** -- 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