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=470155 --- Comment #4 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-17 17:54:18 EDT --- OK, now I can download. Rpmlint is dead quiet on package and spec file. The naming is OK, as is the base name of the spec file. Package builds cleanly in mock, on a Fedora 9/X86_64 configuration. After building and installing, the program starts just fine. Nothing strange at a first sight. The license: tag is valid, and the code has a proper license file and copyright notice in the source. The package meets to my understanding the Packaging Guidelines. The License file is not in %doc (there is no %doc at all). It should be. The upstream md5sum matches the srpm source (5e1963b488dfa0aca75be3bc3af04887) As a summary, I see no problems at all with this package besides the missing %doc LICENSE. And it looks fun. You know, it's harder if it's not your native language... I have actually walked down the complete review checklist, but it's really no point to describe all "complies" here. -- 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