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=476829 --- Comment #3 from Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> 2008-12-17 12:23:45 EDT --- Yes, that sounds completely reasonable. Few notes before full review: - you can drop setting the CFLAGS for the "make" commands in %build, there is no C/C++ code built, if I see it right - are the INSTALLSITELIB and INSTALLSITEARCH really required for the "make" commands in %install? They looks like some pythonic paths. - what is the upstream versioning scheme? Does the version in the included archive mean that it is a snapshot made 20081124 after the 3.0 release? Then you should apply "post-release package guideline" - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages (version=3.0, release=1.20081124) - according to the README in foomatic-db, there should be files licensed under MIT too, please recheck and update the License tag to "GPLv2+ and MIT" - new snapshot was released today :-) -- 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