https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046812 --- Comment #3 from Susi Lehtola <susi.lehtola@xxxxxx> --- (In reply to Robert Scheck from comment #2) > (In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #1) > > I think the versioning is wrong. The 3.1 should be in the version field. > > Then again, who knows - the tarball naming is pretty weird anyways. Please > > check the package naming guidelines... and be prepared to use Epoch if the > > versioning changes. > > I was in touch with upstream before: The goal is to rename to jupp and the > versioning is correct. Personally, I also can not see any conflict with our > guidelines at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines > > Do you see a blocker here? If so, please let me know so that we can talk to > upstream directly. No, not really. Just making sure. > > Next, the Summary is inconsistent, since the Description doesn't mention > > WordStar at all. Based on the home page, I'd put something like > > Summary: An enhanced, portable fork of the JOE editor > > As the summary proposal came from upstream I would like to update description > instead. However changing one of the two texts is IMHO more cosmetic. OK. > > Also, please don't use macros in the URL, because then it's not human > > readable in the spec. Also, note that according to the web page the url > > should be > > URL: http://mirbsd.de/jupp > > But you noticed that this URL redirects to https://www.mirbsd.org/jupp.htm? Yes, it does (for now). But my primary point was that IMHO the URL in the spec should by copy-pasteable into the browser :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review