https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1004231 Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Regarding the name, I concur having a common namespace for lv2 packages is a good idea. Would you please bring this up with the Packaging Committee to make this an official standard? -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee -- thanks. Diff to comment #4: ... [!]: License confusion in the README aside, the package should really package the correct version of the GPL (i.e. v3, not v2). ... [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. ... [x]: Final provides and requires are sane. ... --> Providing you include the correctly versioned license text, this package is APPROVED. -- 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