https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185301



--- Comment #4 from David King <amigad...@amigadave.com> ---
(In reply to Mathieu Bridon from comment #3)
> License tag is incorrect, if I checked correctly it should be:
>…

Thanks for that! I would normally trim this down a bit to the effective license
of the binary, which in this case would allow dropping of the LGPLv2+ and
GPLv2+ bits (as all the files under those licenses are built into a binary with
GPLv3+ code, and effectively GPLv3+). However, this probably needs too much
careful examination of licenses to maintain well.

In any case, fixed now.

> Other than that, please use %license for the COPYING file, rather than %doc.

Cool, this was not part of the licensing guidelines the last time I checked, so
fixed too.

> Finally, that #VCS comment seems wrong, unless you're packaging cheese
> again. :)

Whoops! Fixed now.

Scratch build, including the changes, and a 32-bit build fix from upstream
(also reuploaded in place):

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8707142

-- 
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
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

Reply via email to