https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373641 --- Comment #6 from Fabio Alessandro Locati <fale@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Guido, Looking at this SPEC file, there are few things that should be improved in my opinion before do a "proper" review. 1. Please send upstream all patches and file addition that can be sent upstream. Fedora policy is to stay close to upstream. Examples of patches that should be definitely sent upstream are the one to fix the FSF address as well as fix version number (probably they forgot to change it during the release process). Also, adding the desktop/appdata files to upstream will probably be welcome as well. 2. the lv2-setBfree-plugins package does not depend on setBfree, which seems odd to me. 3. The setBfree-common package only contains license and doc. Probably is better to put those files in the setBfree package and drop the setBfree-common package. If the lv2-setBfree-plugins package does not depend on the setBfree package, it will need to carry it's own license file, otherwise the setBfree one will be enough If you have any doubts, please do contact me here, via email, or via irc :). -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx