https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=758734 Volker Fröhlich <volker27@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review?, |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(volker27@xxxxxx) | --- Comment #15 from Volker Fröhlich <volker27@xxxxxx> --- ==APPROVED== Sorry for the long delay! Spelling mistakes are gone Directory ownership is fine now Locales are fine Name macro on the patch is fine Source checksum was a false positive, as you said I trust in you, concerning the functionality of the package. The patch is commented, but there is no indication in the spec file or the patch, telling you informed upstream. According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment this is a SHOULD and thus does not block the review. About the epoch: The guidelines do not forbid epochs, even when unnecessary: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Use_of_Epochs Nevertheless, this draft document makes it clear, they are not desireable, if not necessary: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Epoch#Use_of_Epochs I think it should be fine to drop the epoch, just say "1" instead of the macro and summarize or manipulate the changelog. If the epoch of Fatrat would change, you'd have to change it manually for this package anyway. Of course feel free to ask for other opinions! -- 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