https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=907007
--- Comment #22 from Björn Esser <bjoern.es...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to François Cami from comment #20) > Thank you Björn for the review. You're welcome! If you don't mind, I'd welcome you to review this simple one here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969387 > For the record: > [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > => Upstream ships the license text in the LICENSE file, so that's a [x]. [-] means: doesn't apply here, see legend above review-report. So the meaning was: It does not apply here to have upstream asked for including some LICENSE/COPYING in SOURCES, since it's already there. I don't want to put up a flame-war-style arguement here, but I think [x] and [-] do have the same comeback in this context. Cheers, Björn -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hWiigWjn9j&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
