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: xorg-x11-docs


           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER           |ASSIGNED

------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-07-24 20:17 EST -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> - Obsoletes: XFree86-doc, xorg-x11-doc; Do we provide those in this package?

No, but nothing should depend on them either.  The packages didn't even
exist in FC5, so if anything depended on them we probably would have gotten
a bug report by now.  I can add Provides anyway though if you prefer, just
for completeness. ;)

> Other than that, the only rpmlint errors are ignorable.
> Approving (if you address the above issue)

All the X packages have "License: MIT/X11", however technically speaking
different parts of X are under slightly different licenses.  Individual
source files are sometimes under a different license.  The majority of
all of the licences are the MIT licence, or very close clone of it, or
of the BSD no-ad-clause license.  If there's a generic text that should
be used instead of "MIT/X11" for quirks of this nature, I can change it

Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

Fedora-package-review mailing list

Reply via email to