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=484808 --- Comment #2 from Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <a...@redhat.com> 2009-02-10 08:03:16 EDT --- 1) Because procfs also exists in other OSes, such as Solaris, where this idea, AFAIK, came from. And the files parsed have very much Linux specific keys and formats, so having "linux" in the name is needed. 2) All the .py files state that the files are under GPLv2, as does the specfile License tag. Is it really a requirement that even with this clearly stated we need a copy of the license in a LICENSE named file? If that is the case, sure, I can do it, and will as well as to submit a patch for rpmlint to warn about that :-) -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
