Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462982 Bruno Cornec <bruno.cornec@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(bruno.cornec@xxxx | |om) | --- Comment #3 from Bruno Cornec <bruno.cornec@xxxxxx> 2008-09-20 11:44:54 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Fix licence. Source code says: "either version 1, or (at your option) any later > version.". According to FedoraLicenses, it must be GPL+, not GPLv2+. Ok. I based my deduction on the COPYING file provided which says v2. Will change to GPL+. > Fix "Source:" path. Your URL points to different URL like Source. I think your > URL is OK, but you have to change Source to original path, not path to your > local site. BTW do I need to have a URL for the Source: Tag ? Can I just use the file name only ? > > Fix BuildRoot, use any of these: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag > Your path is similar, but not same as described here. You mean changing %(id -u -n) (which was a previous Fedora recommandation btw) or using mktemp ? > Other personal suggestions: > 01-debian-patches.all.gz does not look as an Fedora patch. Please, can you > rename it and remove debian specific parts? It's jut a patch tha is in the Debian package, and that helps removing compiler warnings. Should it be named 01-gcc-waranings instead ? > I don't see more problems in this package. Fix described problems and I can > approve this package. Ok, will do as soon as I understand better what to fix wrt above questions. Thanks for your help. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review