https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972943
Kashyap Chamarthy <kcham...@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #17 from Kashyap Chamarthy <kcham...@redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #15)
> (In reply to Kashyap Chamarthy from comment #14)
> [cut]
> > (1) Lincences
> >
> > Unknown or generated
> > --------------------
> >
> > /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/lpf-
> > 46ae0c3b2791013a2b5b1d03137538b9bc906350/scripts/build_error.py
> >
> > /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/lpf-
> > 46ae0c3b2791013a2b5b1d03137538b9bc906350/scripts/update.py
> Even if these files are not marked properly, the overall licensing
> situation for this package should be clear form the README and the LICENSE
> file IMHO. If you insist, I can patch the files. However, I've approved
> some packages myself containing files with these licenses since I havn't
> found anything in the guidelines which says I shouldn't in cases like this?!
Ok, ACK, I'm not rigid here.
>
>
> > (2) No %check?
> Unit tests are on the todo-list but yet not in place. Is %check required in
> the guidelines?
Well, not mandatory. Once you have them, you can update the spec.
>
>
> > (3) Rationale for the non-standard-dir-perm (from rpmlint errors)
> Because user modifies files owned by the lpg user pkg-build using group
> permissions, the 775 permissions is needed to allow this. There's some more
> in the README on this.
ACK.
APPROVED.
(Sorry for the delay.)
--
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=Bp2QKO0TbH&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
