https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094042 --- Comment #2 from Jamie Nguyen <jamielinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Sam Wilson from comment #1) > Hi Jamie, Hi! > An informal review as I learn packaging guidelines. Notes are inline. Awesome. Welcome to the packaging world :) > [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. > # Confirmed MIT licensed > > [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least > one supported primary architecture. > # Builds OK https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6820609 > (Noarch) > > [x]: Latest version is packaged. > # Confirmed last commit is 7ab682091d1032035cfcb668e6bd4b465bfa4679 Cool, I like that you checked the license (very important), did a scratch build and checked the latest commit. I see you skipped a lot of the checkboxes. Is that because you didn't assess them or because you didn't find any issue? Usually a reviewer would fill all of the checkboxes. (I'm not necessarily asking you to do more in this informal review, as you've already gone beyond the call of duty. I'm just trying to give advice.) Thanks for the informal review! -- 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