https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279990
Peter Robinson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|1269538 (IoT) |
Referenced
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279990
Peter Robinson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1387531
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279990
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279990
--- Comment #6 from Tom Hughes ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279990
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279990
--- Comment #5 from Jared Smith ---
Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-array-foreach/nodejs-array-foreach.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279990
Tom Hughes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279990
--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes ---
As it's MIT the full license text needs to be included, not just a link to it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279990
--- Comment #3 from Jared Smith ---
I've reach out to upstream and asked them to include the full text of the
license on several of their packages, and they're slowly working through their
packages and adding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279990
--- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes ---
Right, but until they do we need to add it locally as we can't distribute the
source without the license text.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279990
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||956806
11 matches
Mail list logo