Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pigment - Media Center Toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233597 ------- Additional Comments From matthias@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-04-16 05:27 EST ------- Updated packages here, which fix all problems reported : Spec URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/pigment/pigment.spec SRPM URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/pigment/pigment-0.1.4-2.src.rpm (not the glib2-devel BR, since I prefer keeping it in this particular case) About the license, I also think it's fine, but feel free to ask on the mailing-list or even get FE-LEGAL to confirm if you think it's required. About the name... indeed, pigment should maybe be considered like a python package. I didn't really think about it, and since it's not just a python module, but also a system library (libpgmrender.so) and a gstreamer plugin (libpgmrendersink.so), it might be best to not rename it "python-pigment". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review