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: ruby-mecab - Ruby binding for MeCab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233426 j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx 2007-05-04 04:38 EST ------- Sure, My old review still is (mostly) valid: MUST: ===== * rpmlint output is: <empty> * Package and spec file named appropriately * Packaged according to packaging guidelines 0 License ok, but not included! * spec file is legible and in Am. English. * Source matches upstream * Compiles and builds on devel x86_64 * BR: ok * No locales * No shared libraries * Not relocatable * Package owns / or requires all dirs * No duplicate files & Permissions * %clean & macro usage OK * Contains code only * %doc does not affect runtime, and isn't large enough to warrent a sub package * no -devel package needed * no .desktop file required Should FIX ======== * Include the (japanese I know, better then nothing) mail with from upstream stating that an proper license text will be added to the next version. No blockers -> approved! -- 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