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=458826 Jason Tibbitts <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[email protected] |[email protected] Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts <[email protected]> 2009-03-25 19:44:19 EDT --- I don't think there is anything else I can reasonably check. I didn't paste in a run through my usual checklist but I did look over everything that I could actually check. There's one issue I see, which I don't think is major: the license on the metapackage is a bit confusing, because it only contains a single text file which isn't itself "GPLv2 and GPLv2+ and CPL". I don't really know what's appropriate, but I don't think that using the union of the licenses of the packages that will be pulled in is any worse than saying "Public Domain" or whatever. There's also the interesting question of whether LD_PRELOAD is considered "linking" and how that intersects with the incompatibility of the CPL with other licenses. I don't think it matters for this package because, among the binaries included in this package, there's no GPL/CPL linking going on as far as I can tell. Anyway, this package looks vastly better than the original, and I don't see anything else to complain about. Thanks for your patience. APPROVED -- 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
