https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2296364
--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Jonathan Steffan from comment #3) > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "ISC License". 31 files > have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/jon/Reviews/erlang-hut/licensecheck.txt > [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > > ISC License is missing. I'm not sure if the inline for erlang.mk covers this > requirement. This erlang.mk is another competing build-tool for Erlang apps. We don't even use it for building of this package. Out of curiosity let me ask Fedora-Legal. The answer will be quick I believe. -- 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=2296364 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202296364%23c4 -- _______________________________________________ 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
