https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279104
William Moreno <williamjmore...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org |williamjmore...@gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #6 from William Moreno <williamjmore...@gmail.com> ---
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
OK: The License field in the package spec match the actual license.
OK: The text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %license.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
OK: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
OK: The package must contain code, or permissible content. [17]
OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
OK: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
Your package looks good, I will take your review request and become your
sponsor but I want so see some informal reviews before aprobe the package and
sponsor you as package maintainer.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
