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=483390 --- Comment #7 from Tom "spot" Callaway <[email protected]> 2009-02-02 09:47:07 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > As far as I can see, the Review Guideline say "if (and only if)...". I admit > that my English is not so good, but I do not think that my understanding of > "and only if" is wrong... Is there a special meaning due to the fact that > those > three words are in parenthesizes ? Hmm, I can see how that is unclear. As the author of those words, I can assure you that this is what I intended them to mean: When the source package includes the text of the license(s) in separate file(s), then that file or files, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. If they are not present, the package maintainer may add copies of the licenses in the Fedora package, but is not required to do so. However, in such cases, the packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake. ^^^ Does that make things clearer? If so, I'll propose the change to FPC. -- 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 [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
