https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811410 José Matos <jamatos@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from José Matos <jamatos@xxxxxxxx> --- Thank you for taking care of my requests. You explanation regarding the dependenvies is fully convincing since nltk is an extra dependency of lunr. Now it all makes sense. :-) Eventually if you add the dependency to python-lunr it will be picked directly from python-lunr dependency. In any case this is an academic discussion since you are the maintainer of both packages and thus it is you call where to place the dependency. Now the revision: The license is correct and the spec file follows all the Fedora guidelines. Running fedora-review shows three warnings: 1) The license is in index.html that is not marked as %license. 2) The package name already exists in Fedora. 3) Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. They are false positives: 1) is funny and bogus. The license is already included so it does not make sense to add index.html; 2) sure enough, after all this is a re-review; 3) those files need to be there and there is already a -doc subpackage. So the 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
