Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: 915resolution https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194566 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-28 05:29 EST ------- Good ---- rpmlint is clean for the binary, debuginfo and src rpms requires list is fine permissions correctly set builds cleanly in mock (x86) README.fedora added to the package tarball version matches upstream Bad --- It really does need to be enclosed in a wrapper with an example script for use in %{_sysconfdir} - as it stands, it's one of those applications that you install and wonder why you did - at least with something in %{_sysconfdir} users will know what to do (or where to look!) Minor ----- release version is one off - this one should be 2 (there is no release 0!) "public domain" as a license is fine for FE, but has caused issues in Germany. This is not just FC, but lots of others. As it stands, FC is fine with it as a license. Fix the issue in BAD and I'm happy to approve it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
