https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876317
--- Comment #7 from Matthew Miller <mat...@redhat.com> --- (In reply to comment #6) > Hi Mathew > You should contact upstream to include the license, > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text I've changed the license tag to MIT to reflect the actual license in the source file. Since this file contains its own license in text form, I don't think there's a particular need to include a separate copy. > In this case, you must document how to generate the tarball in the spec > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL Since there is a single small file, I don't think that gains anything. This source is smaller than most patches. If there were multiple sources, I would do that. > In this case should follow the guidelines for EPEL5 Added Buildroot tag to match. Updated: Spec URL: http://mattdm.fedorapeople.org/ec2-metadata.spec SRPM URL: http://mattdm.fedorapeople.org/ec2-metadata-2012.08.30-2.fc18.mattdm.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
