No Description Provided

Reviews:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?component=Package%20Review&email1=akozumpl%40redhat.com&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=substring&list_id=1570150&query_format=advanced

Maintain packages:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/packages/akozumpl

From wiki:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_sponsor_a_new_contributor#Becoming_a_Fedora_Package_Collection_Sponsor
* Have done five high quality, nontrivial package reviews.

Aleš you made only three reviews. Please make more reviews and return later.
Also if fedora-review create output like:
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
It is not meant to be left as is. It is meant that you have to manual check it and edit it to [x] or [!] or [-].

I.e. -1 from me.

Thanks for the query links. That's not enough reviewing activity (and no visible guiding).

Output from fedora-review is to be taken with a grain of salt. You may use it and see whether it reports any interesting issues, but please perform an own review of the package, too. Don't just dump fedora-review output into bugzilla. Approving a package with an uncommented section, such as

{{{
[!]: MUST Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: python-solv-0.0.0-1.git857fe28.fc17.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/python2.7
/site-packages/_solv.so perl-solv-0.0.0-1.git857fe28.fc17.i686.rpm :
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/solv.so ruby-
solv-0.0.0-1.git857fe28.fc17.i686.rpm :
/usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/i386-linux/solv.so
}}}
is not good at all. That's from the libsolv review. There is also no subsequent comment from you where one could conclude whether anything has been fixed at all.

-1

Another -1 from me as well. 3 reviews is not enough, not to mention quality. The absolute minimum of 5 is just that...a minimum. While sponsors are not necessarily provenpackagers, they should have enough knowledge about Fedora packaging guidelines, apply them and teach newcomers to do the same.

I see -3... please do more reviews and resubmit anytime. Thanks.