| What | Removed | Added |
|---|---|---|
| CC | paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@gmail.com | |
| Flags | fedora-review? |
Comment # 1
from pcpa
I would like to review this package. The first issues I noticed: data/elldata/README is not %doc tagged. I could not find information about how to verify the signed file. But after some searching this should give some hints: -%<- $ gpg --verify SOURCES/elldata.tgz.asc SOURCES/elldata.tgz # get key number gpg --recv-keys --keyserver hkp://pgp.mit.edu/ key B5444815 gpg: "key" not a key ID: skipping gpg: requesting key B5444815 from hkp server pgp.mit.edu gpg: key B5444815: public key "Bill Allombert <ballombe@debian.org>" imported gpg: no ultimately trusted keys found gpg: Total number processed: 1 gpg: imported: 1 $ gpg --verify SOURCES/elldata.tgz.asc SOURCES/elldata.tgz gpg: Signature made Sun 15 Apr 2012 11:37:04 AM BRT using DSA key ID B5444815 gpg: Good signature from "Bill Allombert <ballombe@debian.org>" gpg: aka "Bill Allombert (Lab. A2X) <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>" gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner. Primary key fingerprint: 4940 AE28 C5F8 E8A3 5E4D 8D28 7833 ECF1 B544 4815 -%<- README file also appears to be quite outdated, and only says the data is under the terms of the GNU GPL, no license version information. The README file also says it was last updated 11/04/2012, so, I think a better approach for version should be used. As Version: 20120415 has some flaws; personal experience with non versioned texlive packages... and suddenly a version being added to it, but those are rare cases, so, just a suggestion, e.g. either use <pari-version>.<date> or 0.<date>.
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