https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054938 --- Comment #6 from Mihkel Vain <turakas@xxxxxxxxx> --- Another option is to use same naming as its currently used in Fedora repos. Meaning: esteid-browser-plugin (digital signing browser plugin) instead of firefox-esteid (#1054941) and mozilla-esteid (Mozilla extension) instead of esteidpkcs11loader (#1054938) But since those packages are already in Fedora repos now I just don't know how to act :) In this case review should not be required any more. Just upgrading existing packages, but since those are my first set of packages, I'd still like that someone would check those spec files. Kalev, I see you are getting those emails as well. What is your opinion? Is it ok to go the same path with #1054938 and #1054941 as we did with qdigidoc, qesteidutil, libdigidoc and libdigidocpp. Eg I just upgrade esteid-browser-plugin and mozilla-esteid in rawhide and you check specs :D -- 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