https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292244 --- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- First, a comment on your reviews: - you seem to put too much trust in automated tools. Actually that's the hard part of doing review, knowing when to ignore ignore rpmlint or fedora-review warnings, and when not to. Disillusionment comes with more experience ;) - If rpmlint or another tool flags some error, the reviewer shouldn't just paste the message, they should discuss the underlying issue, unless it's obvious. E.g. in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268083#c2 rpmlint says noarch-python-in-64bit-path. The reason could be that %{python2_sitelib} should be used instead of %{python2_sitearch}, or that the package should not be noarch. The reviewer should, as far as they are able to, hint at a solution. - also, fedora-review leaves various check boxes empty, the review is supposed to fill those in manually. But the majority of you comments are very useful (good catch with the license in #1268083), and you seem to know how everything is supposed to work. I'm happy to add you to the packagers group. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review