https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1133217 Pierre-YvesChibon <pingou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Pierre-YvesChibon <pingou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Martin Sourada from comment #5) > (In reply to Pierre-YvesChibon from comment #4) > > * Spec is clean > > * License is CC-BY-SA > > ! Why the strange %version tag? I guess I can see a relation with Fedora 21 > > alpha, thus version is pre 21, but since the package is named f21, why not > > just use 0.1 for alpha, 0.2 for beta and 1.0 for release? > Just following the scheme from previous releases. It could be used for > virtual versioned provides of system-backgrounds-gnome, etc.; we currently > don't use that, but the possibility is there, with this versioning scheme. > > > ? You know probably better than I, but why is KDE having F21 while all the > > other desktops have f21? > > > Again, for historical reasons. We are used to small caps, but back in the > day when the -kde package used to be separate, they were using title case. > Thus I keep using that for the F21 as well as we used it in previous > releases with normal names. Fair enough. This package is APPROVED -- 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