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=650643 --- Comment #13 from Hans de Goede <[email protected]> 2010-11-22 10:49:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #12) > - no diff between the included source archive and the one reproduced with the > steps written in spec file ? Not sure what you mean here. > - I think the version should be 0.6.2b instead of 0.6.2 Alphanumeric chars in the version are frowned upon / disallowed by the guidelines I could add the b to the release field. > - there are 3 files in the src/elements directory that are LGPLv2+ licensed, > looks like as an omission, the copyright holder is the same as in the MIT > licensed files, also it's fixed in 0.7.5, I am not sure what will be the best > solution here ... I think that given that this is a library, and we're talking LGPL not GPL, that it probably is best / easiest to just put "MIT and LGPLv2+" in the license tag. Do you agree? -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
