https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2224783
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ Assignee|[email protected] |[email protected] Status|NEW |POST --- Comment #10 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <[email protected]> --- With the latest changes, the review is trivial: + package name is OK + latest version + license is acceptable for Fedora (Apache-2.0 and change) - license is specified correctly (see below) + builds and installs OK + BR/R/P look reasonable > License: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception AND BSL-1.0 Shouldn't this be "OR" instead? Both files that are in the binary package have the same header that says "Alternatively, the contents of this file may be used under the terms of the BSL". Please add a comment how the license is derived. I don't think this makes any difference in practice, so the package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2224783 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202224783%23c10 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
