Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=951711 --- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean <rbean@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #2) > - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > (pending upstream bug https://github.com/bartaz/impress.js/issues/279) Yeah.. still waiting. > - Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > (see item below - you'll need a Requires on httpd for this) > > - Requires correct, justified where necessary. > (What the MochiKit package does is provide an httpd config file that has > Alias /MochiKit /usr/share/MochiKit > in it. If you do something like this, your patch can use /impressjs > instead > of hardcoding the file:/// url.) I see. What if a user wanted to install the impressjs resource but didn't want to have the demo served from their machine with httpd? That is the particular use case I packaged this for. Specifically for the python 'hovercraft' tool which bundles impress.js. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952355 > - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. > (As per > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment > throw in a quick comment about why the patch exists.) Cool, can do. > - The Release tag seems wrong. At least nuke the "1" before it. Cool. Will nuke. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KbRtgVii09&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review