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=433398 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla <limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-09-22 16:19:40 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > > So, of that, just fix the license tag. > > A few other things. The INSTALL mentioned some mandatory programs. > > A: You should probably determine the rpms that provide these, and Require them. > > B: Since you obviously cannot Require Oracle, you should either: > > i. Create synback-fedora-README.txt explaining that Oracle support is present > > but won't work unless Oracle is installed. > > Hi Jon, > > I just released 1.2.2 version of synbak. > > - Fixed the license tag (moved synbak from GPLv2 + GPLv3+) > - Included the README.Fedora (about oracle support licensing) file into doc dir > - Added all required extra rpm packages to the spec file > > let's me know if it's ok now. Looks good, but rename README.Fedora to synbak-README.fedora, so multiple SRPMs on dev systems won't clobber each other. > SRPM URL: > http://www.initzero.it/products/opensource/synbak/download/synbak-1.2.2-1.fc9.src.rpm > > the spec file is included into srpm of course, I must provide an external > version? It's preferrred. I won't make a huge deal out of it, some reviewers will, so I usually do, since I use scripts to put my rpms on my webserver anyway. > Best Regards Rename the readme, and the package itself is fine. Just need to see some review work, and I can sponsor and approve. -- 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